The Plausible Prospect of Pantheism (aka "God is a Rad Freestyling Dragon")

Actual nude photo of God I retrieved by hacking his/her phone and downloading conversations where I caught him/her sexting. Jennifer Lawrence is confused but furious.

Actual nude photo of God I retrieved by hacking his/her phone and downloading conversations where I caught him/her sexting. Jennifer Lawrence is confused but furious.

Projecting the plausible prospect of pantheism as a pterexodactyl isn’t perplexing to people who peruse my page persistently. Compatibilizing conflicting concepts is a crazy concoction I’ve come up with that creates chances for more complex combinations using complementary components of seemingly confrontational considerations. For those of you new to the show, that’s just a way of saying that I believe God is a rad 3D dinosaur, and it’s our job to compatibilize it.

For those of you who’ve never heard about the concept of pantheism, it’s a very scientifically acceptable belief pioneered by a man named Baruch Spinoza. Pantheism asserts that the universe is functionally “God” due to the fact that it rules over our lives and determines the outcomes of all things via a system of universal laws and forces of nature. The reputable evolutionary biologist and avid atheist Richard Dawkins refers to pantheism as “sexed up atheism”.

Why did great minds like Albert Einstein and Carl Sagan describe their beliefs by referring to Spinoza’s conception of pantheism? That’s simple! It’s an undeniable fact. Does that means I believe in a God? Yes and no.

As far as I’m concerned, the Cosmos and all it’s chaos functions as “God” regardless of whether or not I choose to label it as such. Since I try to compatibilize things and make them function interdependently rather than conflicting, I don’t view this idea as “sexed up atheism” as Dawkins does.

I assert that religious deities are intended as Aesop’s Fable type fairy tales meant to explain the nature of the undeniable universal order in a way that’s easier to understand and doesn’t require specific details. I don’t believe that deities created to metaphorically allude to universal laws literally exist. Allegories aren’t intended to be interpreted literally. I believe the “deities” seen in Abrahamic and Samsaric religions were intended to act as metaphors for Mother Nature. Hence, I think the debate between theists and atheists depends on taking allegorical statements literally, and can’t answer reliably without someone first defining “God”.

If you define “God” as the Spinozist concept of a pantheism, that turns the question “Do you believe in God?” into “Do you believe the Spinozist ‘Universe-God’ is sentient?”

We have no way of knowing for sure, and the question of sentience is totally irrelevant.

The deterministic forces of the universe created us. Universal laws are determining the outcomes of all things. That means the universe functions as God to us whether it’s sentient or not. I don’t care whether the universe is sentient. On top of that, we have no way of knowing. That’s why I’m agnostic. When someone asks me “Do you believe in God, Dave?” my answer is “I don’t know, and I don’t care.”

As far as what I believe functions the best as an allegory for the natural way of existence, I believe that crown goes to Daoism. Then again, ”The Dao” is just shorthand that ancient Chinese people used for “The natural way of the world.” It’s the only one that’s openly admitting it’s an allegory, so it’s the one that can transmit the message most directly. I’m not here to talk about those religions though, since I’ve already written the Daoism essay and next week is gonna be more Daoism in the form of Zen Buddhism anyway.

Presently my paper’s purpose is the plausible prospect of pantheism. Inquirers insist I intimate the intricacies surrounding the instant infinity’s existence was initially induced.

Here’s a generic creation myth made by being extremely vague, as is the requirement for all creation myths:

At first, there was nothing. Literal nonexistence, which is a gibberish thing that can’t truly exist because it’s defined by the fact that it doesn’t exist. It only exists in our imaginations, because it can’t actually exist while still meeting the terms of its definition. In order for our existence to create us so we could imagine nonexistence into existence, nonexistence needed existence to differentiate itself from. I’m not sure how or why, but nothing made a thing called “everything” which was the first thing to ever exist. Then everything wanted mean something, so split itself into a thing named “something” and its anti-thing named “nothing” so it could mean two things that are opposite of one another.

In that quite unexplainable moment where nothing wanted to be something so it made everything, then everything wanted to mean something so it made two things, “everything” and “nothing” were born into a universe where the only two things that actually existed were something and nothing.

This word soup continues in a vague undefined manner for quite a while, as it takes a lot of work for words to give themselves definition. The tiny ass particle that physicists believe was the first thing to physically exist is called a quark. I’m unsure of moment of creation mechanics (because everyone is) but I believe even those first quarks came balled up with an anti-thing called “antiquarks” in a ball of quarks and their antiquarks called “a hadron”. Why didn't quarks exist alone first before teaming up with antiquarks to form team hadron? There’s no free quarks. Quarks are stuck to anti-quarks and can't exist without them. For some reason the thing named “quark” just can’t exist without its anti-thing named “antiquark”.

(Sounds familiar right?)

That leads to us to a yet another question:

After the singular entity named “everything” made from the thing/anti-thing duality and that dualistic everything’s anti-thing I’ve named “nothing” go on to become the infinitely complicated everything that we know using only a nebulous ball of hadrons?

It's pretty simple, muh dude. You unknowingly mirror a similar process most likely. How do I know that? No matter you who you are, you’re a part of “everyone”, and everyone is a part everything.

Everything has always done this from the very beginning, starting from that brief moment I just told you about when everything was the only thing that wasn’t nothing. I don't know you well enough to say exactly how this pattern plays out in your life, but I'm pretty sure you do this since everything does.

The most common example I can think of is moving into a new apartment, or house, or bedroom, or otherwise unlisted domicile. When you first move in, you have no furniture, you're waiting on the movers to bring your bed. Your TV's on your floor. Everything is very bare bones, unsophisticated, no decorations, it's essentially just a hut that keeps you dry.

Then the movers come with your bed, and you buy a couch and a stand for your TV. Two weeks later you buy a loveseat and a la-z-boy. Then your aunt throws a couple end tables she came across your way. Then you find a dope ass lamp that's aesthetically exactly your style sitting on the curb waiting for the trashman outside your nearby. You bring it inside to test it just cause you think it looks cool... holy shit it does.

Your living room that was barebones and felt almost like a jail cell from how empty it was is now a personalized chill spot with a soul that represents you and has your spirit imbued in it. You finally feel comfortable having friends come over to to hang out. At this point, you're 3 months into the lease and you're still just getting started.

Four years down the road after renewing that lease a few times and living the dream, you've got concert posters, pictures your friends painted, full size speakers, rugs, and the entire house is equally decked out top to bottom without you really even attempting to make that happen.

It just kinda slowly built piece by piece as you went about your normal functions, and one day you looked back too find what was once a simple hut that kept you dry is now an extremely complex personal palace with rich detail, and tons of stories to go with it. That place is now a part of you forever, and will be long after you eventually move.

Okay, so it's the same concept, except starting from a nebulous ball of hadrons somewhere in a state of what I'll call pseudo-hydrogen because I don't know enough about moment of creation mechanics for proper terminology, and extended out over 15,000,000,000 years.

Do you understand how long fifteen billion years is? I don't actually need to ask that, because it's too long a time frame for the human mind to a wrap itself around. That length of time carries the same meaning as eternity does. In fact, since it represents the amount of time that we’re guessing has passed from the moment time began until now, it’s truly the closest we can get to quantifying eternity.

Simple things started out simple then began slowly coalescing into more complex things, which continued to slowly coalesce into slightly more complex things, then the objects gradually coagulated into more intricate nouns, nouns that mutated into spirits that grew legs then crept slowly through higher orders of specified detail, until eventually everything evolved into the elaborate elemental essence called “all existence” that electrifies your soul with its elegance.
(Is that overdoing it? I expect enemies to erroneously exclaim it exemplifies over-exerting effort. I can’t contest claims criticizing creativity. I’m simply suggesting it’s subjective.)

Existence took an incomprehensibly long amount of time to get the way it is right now, and the only way things could’ve come to be as they are is by way of gradual evolution beginning from a state of pure nonexistence evolving into a state of completely undefined “existence” which by virtue of its nature sharpened the details from there. I can't make it any simpler than that.

Everybody agrees on that fact, no matter how scientifically minded you are. The beginning was vague and undefined, but those properties are inherent in the moment of creation, as complexity hadn’t had a chance to evolve you. Take Occam’s razor to the sentence “nothing grew into something” and tell me the unnecessary component you remove. Even if you say everything just always existed because nonexistence never existed, thus there’s no first cause, you’re still saying the same thing I just said in different words.

Holy shit… did I just solve all religious conflict? I mean, I proved God existed and did it in a way that makes “God” undeniable fact, I explained the moment of creation in a way that accurately represented physics and was in accordance with philosophical ontology and epistemology.
(I didn’t make up the “no first cause” proposal, I promise)

That means we can all agree that atheists and theists are saying the same thing right?

Unfortunately, even though pantheism clearly defines the vague term “God”, it also forces us to try comprehending the infinite by making God’s definition the universe. Oh… and it gives the mystical powers attributed to deities to the universe itself, which suggest a mystical pervading spirit. And… uhh… not everybody likes my “no first cause answer”.
(Shit… we’re about to decompatibilize pantheism into atheistic and theistic interpretations, aren’t we? I fuggin’ hate you guys so much. Can’t we just agree for once?)

Alright, keep in mind that not matter what I hold myself agnostic, and don’t know what the ultimate truth is. I personally look at conflicting concepts and try to find ways to make them work. I call this compatibilizing, which is based on the idea behind compatibilism. For those of you who don’t know, compatibilism is the fence-sitting answer to “Determinism Vs Free-will” debates that makes it so you can’t ever lose as long as you play fast and loose with the definition of free-will.

Compatibilizing things generally doesn’t involve changing how things interact, but changing how you view the underlying concepts going into those things and their interactions.

For example, as an answer to the partisan divide between Republicans and Democrats in America, I suggested that people stop viewing politics on a single left-to-right axis. Instead, I suggested three axes of diplomatic foreign policy, domestic social policy, and economic policy that acts both foreign and domestically. Once placed on three axes, politics stops becoming a line and becomes any three dimensional shape that can exist on three axes. Some people think a sphere is simplest; I believe spheres are boring. Rad 3d dinosaur are way cooler than spheres, thus I compatibilized the false dichotomy of American politics into truly rad 3d dinotomy. That allowed dinotomy for various types of Republocrats and Demicans to express their beliefs without getting dragged along for the ride by Republicans and Democrats.

Thus by way of compatibilization, I believe that a lot of life’s conflicts can be solved if you just alter your perception of them until you can see the conflicts for their rad 3d dinocity.

Daoists then communicate this using the concept yin-yang. The Dao comes from “everything” (yang) and “nothing” (yin) compatibilizing into a rad 3d dinosaur that can’t logically be put into words. Though it seems rather confusing to say the Dao can’t be put into words, if you strip those words from it, the baseline undefined natural state of existence that’s left over is all I’m referring to.

In order to properly compatibilize atheism and theism, let’s look at the different interpretations of pantheism to see where the conflicts are:

Really the worship of nature as God is the baseline proto-religion from which all religions are born. We should be able to compatibilize things back to this logically plausible state.

Equating the vague spiritual essence referred to as “An all-powerful God” in the Abrahamic religions and the nebulous “Dao” in Daoism with natural laws and forces regulating the universe is an idea pioneered in our culture by a man named Baruch Spinoza.
(Just reminding you. It’s been awhile since I name dropped him to appear well-informed superficially)

The concept of pantheism that was conceptualized by Spinoza has lots of interpretations that range from how great scientific minds such as Albert Einstein and Carl Sagan describe their beliefs to mystical interpretations the propose an interconnecting “spirit of the universe”. The thing is, 95% of the physical universe is dark matter and dark energy that science hasn’t got the first clue about. We know it’s there, because it has to be. That’s all we know though. That leaves pantheism open to interpretation as people draw their own conclusions about the great unknown.

Pantheism’s interpretations cover a wide range of ideas, including ones that propose a deity turning itself into the universe or otherwise imbuing it’s spirit into it. This deity is used as a way of explaining both first cause and why an all-powerful deity such as the Abrahamic god would create a universe then seemingly disappear. Some people use an “interconnecting spirit” interpretation to say the deity didn’t fully cease to exist and is still somehow guiding everything along, despite not physically existing within the universe.

The Daoist type interpretations with a spirit that interconnects everything are called “panentheism.” Panentheist interpretations can differ in whether or not that interconnecting spirit pervades everything, if extends beyond what we call “existence”, what exactly “extending past existence” means in the cases it does, and if that spirit can be considered “sentient”.

For clarification, my panentheist interpretation is the spirit does pervade literally “everything” because it makes up the fundamental forces. I don’t propose anything extends past the universe though, because “exceeding the borders of an infinite continuum” is impossible gibberspeak describing a thing that can’t happen. However, I also view the “nonexistence” the we imagine forms the border of existence to actually be a sort of superexistence where all things are fused into one thing. Thus the yin-yang combination of existence and nonexistence is what I call “God” If I were to speculate beyond that, I suspect all life sharing a “collective consciousness” in addition to the pantheist belief that all existence is bound by universal laws is a conceptualization that makes it at clear as possible. That superexistent nonexistence is actually our collective hivemind fused with all other things is basically the gist. This collective consciousness version of panentheism is also called “panpsychism”.

Essentially it’s a compatibilization of the concept of the Dao and the singularity created by Buddhist “non-dualism”. The fusion of Daoism and Buddhism into a rad 3d dinosaur called “Zen” is a whole other essay.

Anyway, moving on...

The concepts that propose a deity are called pandeism, and they don’t necessarily imply panentheism. Some interpretations of pandeism are that the deity’s consciousness “died” so it stopped existing as a deity when it became the physical realm. That leads to a deity as first-cause that then didn’t interfere with the universe (called “deism”) combining with pantheism to become pandeism. Other versions propose the deity became the spirit referred to in panentheism, which I suppose you’d call panentheist pandeism.
(That’d be Pandentheism if you like compatibilizing things into a dinocity)

The last distinction I wanna make clear is that in all my life there’s only one person who’s ever said that they believed pantheism is differentiated from non-pantheist theism. Their logic was that pantheism proposes the universe is God because it controls our actions and determines the outcome of all things. If you look at the universe as a computer, non-pantheist theists view God as the one with the mouse and keyboard. He’s not the thing truly interacting with us to control our actions (pantheism’s universe-computer-god) but he still controls that computer despite being a separate entity.

Even this last one is still just a form of panentheism because it’s still admitting the “computer-universe” is functioning as God to us, and then a deity is controlling that computer. That would mean the panentheist idea of the universe’s “interconnected spirit” is guiding us because we’re part of the computer, and that spirit is receiving commands from a deity on how to control us. It could also be pandeist, because the deity could have imbued itself into the computer-universe. That wasn’t ever stated to me by the dude.

What I just described is a form of panentheism that proposes “God” goes beyond the universe, because it’s saying an interconnecting oneness that acts according to a deities will controls us, while pandeism says the deity transformed into the universe.

Remember when I told you some interpretations of panentheism say the universe functions as God in a Spinozist manner, but disagree on whether or not the universe and the divine are one? Nondivine computer-god controlled by divine deity is one way that plays out.

Again, I personally fall into the Daoist/Buddhist panentheist category. God is an interconnecting “spirit of the universe” that pervades all things, that spirit isn’t actually separate from us at all we’re actually small pieces of it (it is us and we are it). I don’t mean for the word “spirit” to be interpreted mystically. There just isn’t another way I can describe the fundamental forces combining with the laws of physics to create the biochemical reactions that we call “life”. Still, our entire being is created from those biochemical reactions, and Universe-God’s involved in all of them since the weak nuclear force is mediating them in most cases.

I personally don’t think the interconnecting, self-regulating system described by the Dao is all that unbelievable. Ecosystems come to balance, planets maintain their orbit, life works towards homeostasis. I don’t think that system implies a deity created it; I believe that self-regulating system itself is God. I just have an unconventional concept of “God” that applies the label to something I can see in firsthand.

Thus my version of panentheism and pantheism as a whole, to me, appear to be fact.

Other forms of pantheism, specifically pandeist interpretations and panentheist versions that hold divinity separate from the universe, I don’t think they can possibly be true but I don’t know for sure.

The universe is infinite so there isn’t anything outside of it. A deity existing outside the border of everything that exists seem logically impossible. Even if existence’s borders are constantly expanding out further into nebulous nonexistence that we’ve imagined into existence by attempting to put infinity in a box with the words “existence” and “universe” and “cosmos” and “god”, all existence is still all existence and if something exists it’s included in all “all existence”.

I still don’t consider myself atheist because I believe the spirits of the “Deity-Gods” are real if you don’t interpret metaphors literally. I think heaven is a state of mind generated by living a spiritually healthy lifestyle, and hell is the one generated by not living that way. I know those two states of mind exist, I know you end up in those states of mind the same way the Bible claims you wind up in either heaven or hell, and I know those lessons are best transmitted through fable.

“What if you die, it turns out literal, and God is pissed you didn’t believe?” I tell him I believed in and followed the allegorical spirit of Christ that was imbued in the Bible and expect a God would know viewing it all as an allegory was the only way I could logically justify giving any of it creedence.

“What about all the sex with dudes you’ve had and drugs you’ve shot up and blah blah?” Christ died so I could do that and be forgiven. Anyone trying to condemn you to hell in Christ’s name clearly hasn’t the book. Beyond that, I live a more wholesome life and I’m happier for it today. I hope I’d also be forgiven on those grounds if I Christ didn’t already give me the freebie.
(Yes I just outed myself as bi, in case trying to figure out what I meant is distracting)

“What about all you’re giving up now that you’ve changed your ways for God?” I changed my ways for me, and I’m enjoying the time I’m alive more for having done it. That would mean I’m not really missing out, wouldn’t it? I can’t personally expect anyone else to see things, and I don’t judge those who don’t. I just make the observation that from my experience, living wholesome and what not is a lot more enjoyable than pure hedonism.

Plain and simple, I don’t see the deity things as logically possible. That would require something existing outside infinity.

The reason I say that is because I equate the terms “universe” and “cosmos” and believe nothing can exist outside the boundaries of those infinite terms. A deity creating the infinite universe necessitates adding a thing separate from infinity to the concept of “infinite”. A deity is implying “infinity + 1” and the “+1” should already be implied in infinity. The deity being +1 puts them in a multiverse that exists outside our universe.

When viewed through the lens of pantheism, to me that multiverse is also “God” and our universe is a component of that multiverse. Our universe is still “God” because our universe is piece the multiverse.

Let’s talk about the potential multiverse though. This seems logically impossible because it creates two infinities, one infinitely larger than the first, which was infinitely large. In reality, some infinities really are larger than other infinities, so infinity existing within bigger infinity is possible. It’s clearly laid out in a mathematical concept called “Cantor’s theorem”. Cantor built his theorem by proving you can build an infinite superset that contains infinite sets of real numbers. That infinite superset will contain more sets than the set of real numbers alone will because there’s more sets of real numbers than there are real numbers. Thus, there is a super-infinity then a mini-infinity. Two infinities of different sizes.

The only thing that can’t exist according to Cantor is the set of infinities that contains all other infinite sets. The reason it can’t is because it would form an infinite set, and not be able to contain itself, thus it would be the infinite set that contains all infinite sets except itself, and not truly the infinite set that contains all infinite sets.

This non-existent infinite set is represented by the nonexistence encompassing all existence. It doesn’t exist, by definition, and it’s the nonexistent infinite set that contains all infinite sets.

Thus, if you look at our universe as “the infinite set of real numbers” then envision that universe to be part of a multiverse made from sets of real numbers, that then apply the label of “cosmos” the multiverse that contains our universe it enables deities and allows for those interpretations if you’re only looking at our mini-infinite universe.

We still haven’t solved first cause though, because it leads to the question “Where did the multiverse come from?” which again gets answered with a deity that represents “infinity + 1”. To explain that, you add an omni-multiverse on top of the multiverse containing our universe. Where did the omni-multiverse come from?

That omni-multiverse exists on the back of a giant turtle. That giant turtle is standing on the back of an even bigger turtle, and it’s just turtles all the way down. The last turtle is standing on nonexistence that doesn’t exist. How is it standing on nonexistence? It’s an infinite stack of giant turtles dude. You’re asking the wrong questions.

Thus in regard to the origins of our mini-infinite universe that exists within an infinite multiverse, which exists within a superinfinite omni-multiverse, people can explain it with a panentheist pandeistic interpretation of “pantheism”; let’s call it “Pandentheism.”

However, when I say “The universe is God,” I’m not referring to that pandentheist mini-infinite universe, I’m referring to the “turtles all the way down” conundrum created by “infinity + 1.” “Infinity +1” can be best described as “a continuum”. That continuum exists without borders and is constantly expanding via it’s “+ 1” nature.

The continuum is often called “the spacetime continuum” and is described above as an omni-multiverse. Spinoza’s Pantheism is the idea that the omni-multiverse is God. That’s my interpretation of pantheism, at least. The infinite expanse of existence called the cosmos is God. If that extends beyond our universe, our universe is still God because it’s a part of that cosmos.

That continuum is incomprehensible, and defies being put into to words. To simplify God enough to put the infinite continuum in a box with words, I use the yin-yang compatibilization of the vague concept “rad 3d dinocity”. What I’m saying is there’s one more problem with pantheism: Infinity is beyond mankind’s comprehension, so saying “the infinite universe is God” is nonsense, because “infinite universe” is incomprehensible and has no meaning.

In order to solve this, I suppose we need to create an allegory alluding to the infinite:

So… the universe comes from Nothingness that wanted the property of somethingness so it made the word “everything”. “God” is the word that contains the yin-yang duality of everything (yang) and nothing (yin). Because God is a yin-yang made from everything and nothing, it holds a sort of “superposition” of both existing and not existing at the same time. “God” is a word we use to put infinity in a box. “Infinity” is so vague you could claim that it’s anything and the statement would be accurate. Since I get to make “Universe-God” into anything I want, I envision to be shaped like a rad 3d dinosaur.
(Can science get that infinitely coherent quantum computer up and running already? This 1 and 0 at the same time thing is confusing…)

What kind of rad 3d dinosaur is the unreal reality we call “The Universe”, a triceratops or a brontosaurus? It’s compatibilized into a tribrontotops.

“But at the start of the essay you said it was a pterexodactyl, Dave…” You’d solve that problem by compatibilizing it into ptebrexatops. It has short arms and a giant head with three horns like a friendly trirexatops, but it flies way up high to avoid danger and has a long neck so it doesn’t need to take risks to eat, just like the majestic ptebrontodactyl.

God is just friendly, majestic ptebrexatops. I believe part of that ptebrexatops *might* live within all of us. The reason I think that is because God is the universe, and we’re made from universe pieces. Also we’re a part of the universe. So we are the universe and the universe is us. God is the universe. We are God and God is us.

I also believe that friendly, majestic ptebrexatops speaks existence into being. You saw how I clearly described how nonexistence turned into existence by making words. Logically it stands that the friendly, majestic ptebrexatops that is the Universe-God is speaking things into exist.

You could say creative speaking is a style of music called “rapping”, so the magic ptebrexatops speaks things into existence by rapping about them. Since the future isn’t written yet the ptebrexatops is making up his mystical rap that creates existence as he goes along.

Rapping while making the whole thing up off the top of your head as you go along is called “freestyling.”

The freestyle rap we call “all existence” is really fuggin’ dope. In the hood, when someone spits dope freestyles, they’re said to be “spitting fire”.

In summation, the God is the universe and the universe is a friendly, majestic ptebrexatops that freestyles everything into existence, and since existence dope, it’s undeniable that the ptebrexatops spits red hot fire.

A ptebrexatops that spits fire is also called “a dragon.”
(Holy shit, dragons are rad. That’s dope!)

As you can see, there’s only one logical conclusion: Pantheism is undeniably true. The cosmos is God. That means the Dao is a rad freestyling dragon, we’re all just a track on his mixtape called “existence”, and that mixtape is fire.

This message was brought to you by your favorite ignostic agnostic: The Pandentheist Demon King Dave the Dude, Time Traveling Zen Daoist Grand Wizard-Shaman of House Puffinstuff and the East. Thanks for readin, muh dudes.
(I’ve really gotta do something about my imaginary title constantly growing via a +1 mechanism every time I present an idea I’ve created using compatibilization. Half the terms contradict each other at this point. Maybe if I just compatibilize them into something rad… like a 3d dinosaur… or a freestyling dragon… or apply my ability to abuse allegorical alliteration and alter all the abstracts then assert anything I aspire to ambiguously…)

Dave Barletta1 Comment