Hi Linds:   It is now Aug. 3,

In the title of this thread I speak of "trying to have a dialogue with Atheists/Agnostics". I use the word "trying" because, perhaps with two exceptions--Crosshatch and Lynne--the vast majority of the A/A' s with whom I have tried to have a dialogue at <about.com> since last October do not want to have a civil dialogue; they don't even want to have a debate, they want to have a verbal duel--the kind that, at best, is filled mostly with silly barbs, and, at worst, mean-spirited and poisoned ones.

Atheists here at WC, how about you? May I assume you  prefer having a civilized dialogue?

Interestingly, very few theists--mostly fundamentalists--have joined in. They, too, have little or no interest in dialogue with anyone who even questions the Bible and orthodoxy. I guess most theists, of whatever stripe, have chosen to take shelter within the walls of their churches with their mostly-vacant pews.

Respectfully, I don't understand your post. Although not every conversation is respectful I find many respectful conversations going on between atheists, agnostics and theists of various stripes here at WC. We may not always (or often) agree, but we're often in dialogue - with sometimes varying levels of respect I admit.

As to theists not joining in with you, I don't understand what dialogue you want theists to join in on.  Your title specifically asks for dialogue with atheists and agnostics. I assumed you were looking for a personal dialogue with atheists and agnostics. If you're looking for a community dialogue including theists those are already happening in a much more focussed way than the ambiguous suggestion you make in your title, and I really have neither the time nor the inclination to engage in an ambiguous and completely undefined "dialogue." What's the point of your thread? What questions are you raising? What issues do you want to discuss? What "dialogue" do you want us all to engage in that isn't already happening here? And given the dialogue that is happening here, I don't get your closing shot: "I guess most theists ... have chosen to take shelter within the walls of their churches with their mostly-vacant pews." That type of unwarranted comment (since many theists are engaging atheists on this website) really doesn't encourage me as a theist to engage in dialogue with you.

Basically... what Rev. Davis said.

But further to that, I know I owe you a response on a post of yours that I felt was the antithesis of civil or respectful, so that's what I need to do first.  Plus, I find myself travelling a lot (sometimes where 'net access is non-existent or sucks big time), so am not sure how engaging I'll be able to be in any kind of protracted discourse even if you do answer Rev. Davis' post.

I (a former atheist) believe you cannot argue across the atheist/faith divide for the simple reason that on the faith side, it is just that, faith.  Many of the people of faith I have talked to (and including myself) have had a moment when they just felt very strongly that some higher power was calling out to them.  Are we crazy?  Some say the roots lie in human evolution (long, long story, see GNXP forum for postings on this topic: warning, some basic knowledge of science required). 

So I am in a circular argument.  Can my brain, evolved to accept religion, reason that this is why I am religious?  

On another note, our church is far from empty (we don't have pews though, we stand). 

You add, "As to theists not joining in with you, I don't understand what dialogue you want theists to join in on."  

You misunderstand me. What I meant to say was this: I felt disappointed that only only fundamentalists read the thread and chose to get involved.

You add: "Your title specifically asks for dialogue with atheists and agnostics. I assumed you were looking for a personal dialogue with atheists and agnostics."

Keep in mind that this thread is simply a continuation of the last thread. It was Arm who suggestied the title change, not me.

To your comment: "If you're looking for a community dialogue including theists those are already happening in a much more focussed way than the ambiguous suggestion you make in your title, and I really have neither the time nor the inclination to engage in an ambiguous and completely undefined "dialogue." "

I respond, in the spirit of agape: Feel free to--as Joseph Campbell was fond of saying--"Follow your bliss!"

THEN YOU ASK THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:

What's the point of your thread?

What questions are you raising?

What issues do you want to discuss?

What "dialogue" do you want us all to engage in that isn't already happening here?

If you really want me to answer your questions,  you will need to tell us, or me, if you really have the time to have a dialogue about all the interesting points you raise.

===========================================================

BTW, I find your "closing shot" delightful , you say:

"And given the dialogue that is happening here, I don't get your closing shot: "I guess most theists ... have chosen to take shelter within the walls of their churches with their mostly-vacant pews."

"That type of unwarranted comment (since many theists are engaging atheists on this website) really doesn't encourage me as a theist to engage in dialogue with you."

Seriously, it has all kinds of dimensions for an interesting dialogue.

I repeat: Follow your bliss! In other words, whatever turns you on. If you want to continue, I am game.

One final comment: I left a note on your Wall.

Just to be clear, I'm not trying to be abrasive or difficult. I'm just not convinced that you've given any clear guide as to where you want to go with this "dialogue" which I think is already happening. Indeed, I shall "follow my bliss!" and wish you God's blessing!

YOU ASK:

What's the point of your thread?

I posted it simply to fulfill the request made by Arminus. Unless Lynne and/or Crosshatch have something to add to my recent comments on Stephen Hawking's latest book, The Grand Design, perhaps I will leave things where they are.

Take a look at the kind of the comments made by others in this thread. Does anyone here think they require a response?

http://forums.about.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?msg=45022.8&nav=messages&webtag...

A civilized dialogue? That requires empathy. But they claim to knwo the absolute truth since there is no evidence. The best and deepest conversations I have had were with Agnostics. Atheists will always drift to cynic comments. On top of that, they begin to babble in some "higher" English and use foreign words to appear superior to the "dumb religious" crowd.

I have no idea what your thread is about. the previous one had at least 10 different topics. the last time I checked, it was about unitheism.

You say: "I have no idea what your thread is about. the previous one had at least 10 different topics. the last time I checked, it was about unitheism."

As long as people are reasonably tolerant, I respect all loved-based and sincerely-held beliefs. I am not a fan of fanaticism, including extreme liberalism.

At this point I enjoy the process theology of Panentheist (similar to unitheism), and others such as Alfred North Whitehead:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_North_Whitehead

Also, check out Marcus Borgh,  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Borg

I think it is easy to bridge the atheist/faith didvide if one embraces unitheism and realizes that unitheism is a form of atheism.

If the unitive or nondualistic cosmos is regarded as God, then this is as good as no God at all.

To regard the universe as a self-generative whole, as a unitive whole in an innate state of non-duality or synthesis, then this is simply a way of contemplating the same universe that atheists or agnostics contemplate, but contemplating, regarding, and experiencing it as divine rather than mundane.

It is simply putting a positive or divine spin on the universe, not an unquestoning belief in a supernatural and unprovable deity.

All good points, Arm. Let us ask theists: Who among you actually think of 'God' as a human-like person, the way  our unsophisticated ancestors thought of the gods on the mountains and in the skies?

Hi Linds:

Many modern Christians don't believe in this kind of God any more, but can't bring themselves to believe in the unitheistic God, or God as the divine universe, either.

According to OT mythology, Lucifer, the Angel of Light, along with 40 of his followers, was plunged into hell and became Satan, the Lord of Hell, simply for wanting to be God, or be like God.

Wanting to be like God has traditionally been regarded as the supreme evil—the unpardonable sin—by traditionalist authoritarian Christianity. Cultural conditioning is powerful, and this taboo against knowing who or what we ultimately are is still ghosting around in our heads and preventing us from finding out who and what we ultimately are: an insperable part of the unitheistic God (or the divine and unitive universe for those who don't like God language :-)

And for those who don't even like divine language? Well, they'll just have to remain mundane. I prefer the divine over the mundane any day. Moreover, I experience being as unitive and divine.

I think only a few Christians believe in a human-like God, today. I have never met a Christian who believes that God looks like a human, though. Human-like does not equal to personal God right? I am panentheist. I believe that the unvierse is (part of) God, but I also believe in a personal God.

Aminius said: "If the unitive or nondualistic cosmos is regarded as God, then this is as good as no God at all."

I don't agree with you. It might apply to pandeists and panendeists. But theists believe in an active God, right? And then, there is this salvation thing running in the background.

This is not my reasoning, Ichthys. Some traditionalist, who believe that the separate, supernatural God is the only possible definition of God, say that unitheism is atheism.

I don't know the difference between deists and theists, though.

God as the self-creative totality of being would have to be active, very active—dynamically active—I would say.

Even if we are an inseparable part of God, the totality named God is incomprehensibly greater than the sum of its parts.

An single human cell is far greater than the x-billion molecules of which it consists, and the human organism is much greater than the 15 billion or so cells of which it consists, and the planetary whole is greater than the billions of organisms of which it consists, etc, etc.: wholes within wholes within wholes, with the greatest, all encompassing whole being God. This is holotheism.

If what we call God is the self-creative totality of being, in a nondualistic, inseparable or unitive state of synthesis, then it will forever elude our attempts at analysis. Then our attempts at analyzing God are mere speculations, and the real knowledge of God is in the unconceptualized and non-analyzed experience.

This experience, to me, feels holy, sacred, and divine.

Our understanding of God is directly proportional to our understanding of ourselves. How can anyone ever expect to know God if they are not in sync with their own soul?

All of the great teachers, Krishna, the Buddha, the Christ have said the same thing. The spiritual core of Hinduism, our dharma, is to find the truth within ourselves. The Buddha says that our suffering is caused by our state of mind, change that state of mind and we can eliminate suffering. The Christ says that truth lies within and herein also is found the Kingdom of God. The Oracle of Delphi says "Know Thyself" and the Egyptian temples say the same thing,  "Man Know Thyself"...

We can't expect to describe the macrocosm if we don't know the microcosm. The two are one.

 Cheers.

Both ideas--uni and pan--are very much what the process theology Alfred North Whitehead is all about. And I will add this: Process theology accepts that GOD, in persons , as well as in and through every particle of creation, can be a very personal and powerful force for good--individually and collectively.

Perhaps we can have a consensus and think of the 'uni' prefix as indicating the alpha (the beginning) point, the no thing, or the zero point; and the 'pan' prefix as indicating the omega (large O, or end) point, that which is without borders and includes all that we call creation.

THE BOTTOM LINE, FOR ME, IS?

OK, what does tuning into--and putting into practice--this kind of process theology referred to above, do for us people--individually and collectively--and for the ecology? How does it compare with what traditional theism and/or deism have to offer? In other words, what does process theology really do for us?

OK, theists and/or deists--and for now, let us just stick with Jews, Christians and Muslims--do not feel left out. Do your stuff! Go ahead and tell us about your beliefs. If you feel that you have credible defense for believing in a supernatural god--God out there--as revealed in the Bible and the Koran, start a thread and tell us about it. As Dawkins and Hitchens challenge: Give us the evidence. Faith alone is not evidence.

No doubt many really believe that when we worship and obey God, He will hear all our prayers, intervene in history and our daily lives. In addition He will take care of us and all our needs. Again atheist challenge: Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof. Start a thread, make your points and provide us with the proofs for which atheists call.

Me? Having been a monotheist for the first part of my life, now as a unitheist, I will explore what it means to think of GOD as the Holistic Oneness of which I am a unit. GOD is also that which is totally wrapped up in who we are and what we are doing--to self and to one another. Yes, I accept that GOD is Spirit, and Love (agape). In that spirit I live and move and have my being.

Rev. LGK

Hello again!  I hope you're hale and hearty and your wife too.

The atheists who post on the WC join in on various threads so you would have to join in on   more threads too if you wish to speak to them. We had a lot of them after the bus sign fiasco : "There is no God",  but now we don't have so many. The ones we do have we mostly call fundamentalist atheists because they always refer to the bible as literal when they attack it. They don't appear to wish to look beyond the bible or to interpret it as many on the WC do, not literally.

Part of the problem may be that many   non-spiritual persons  equate Christianity as  only being what they see on TV re the TV evangelists. They don't realize there are different kinds of Christianity.  We have very few Christians  on the WC who believe as the evangelists do. Our atheist friends don't realize this even although we try very hard to explain  it to them.

I have always wondered why it has to be that only the Evangelists are usually front and center on TV. I suppose its a question of money or non interest by other groups.  It would be wonderful if we had TV programs  about process theology etc. There are New Age seminars which are interesting and I know Matthew Fox did a series of programs once. We simply don't have enough!

Hi startdust:

Televangelists buy their TV time. The fundamentalist right supports the political right, and vice versa. Progressive Christianity doesn't have that kind of financial backing.

LGK

 your quote:

"Again atheist challenge: Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof. Start a thread, make your points and provide us with the proofs for which atheists call."

The atheists on the WC are already always doing this or trying to. You would have to join in and read on more threads on the WC like I said earlier if you wish to talk to them. Personally, its not my  field. I have no patience and I simply lack interest in atheists generally speaking. The ones on the WC are incredibly boring....same old...same old....

What I do like about your thread is that in its very ambiguousness there's little opportunity to be accused of "de-railing" (which is becoming an irritant to me on other parts of the Cafe as folks try to "police" the various threads.)

Why? Since I'm not particularly trying to convert Dawkins, Hitchens, et. al., why do I have to give evidence for what I believe. It's what I believe. And I'm perfectly willing to acknowledge that I can't give empirical, objective evidence for what I believe. It's just what I believe. This demand for evidence has nothing to do with me and everything to do with those who demand the evidence. It's their issue; not mine. I feel under no obligation to respond since - as I said - I'm not trying to convert anyone.

Again, why? Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof - if I'm asking others to believe in the extraordinary claims. Otherwise - again - the need for extraordinary proof is their issue; not mine.

I would look forward to hearing your reflections on that, as "unitheism" is not really one of the various "theisms" with which I'm overly familiar.

Rev. Steven Davis

I reckon I'm a professional derailer who needs to be boiled in oil  .

  I love LGK's   posts. They are so interesting, lots of variety!  Perhaps its because I really really admire his mind for a man who is 80 years young. He has many topics not all related to atheism, lots of science too.

You go.....LGK.....I've learned a whole lot from you on your old threads. You are the most fascinating character on the WC  and one of the most intelligent  .

Rev. LGK knows everything  . I kid you not!

Rev. Davis : LGK is on a mission since a few years I suspect  in  attempting to explain the true meanings of spirituality  to the atheist community at large. He posts on a few forums in this regard. Its a very difficult field he has chosen and he does his very best.

P.S. Just in case you don't understand......

Be careful, stardust. There seems to be a whole posse of "de-railer-hunters" out there in the Cafe on a mission lately. Which kind of makes me want to de-rail everything actually just to bug them. (Did I just say that out in the open! Duck!)

No problem with LGK's mission. I am just a little confused about who he wants to engage and specifically what he wants to engage about.

I do want to hear more about his concept of "unitheism," though.

Steven,

Lindsay's posted it here before, I think, but here is a website devoted to unitheism with some essays by him on it. I'm still not clear in my own head whether it is somehow different from panentheism or just another approach to it, but maybe he'll come along soon and speak to that point. The one essay on the site seems to suggest that it is more or less the same thing but he prefers "unitheism" in place of "panentheism" to avoid confusion with "pantheism".

Mendalla

Thanks Mendalla. When I have a bit of free time I'll look at the article. Just based on the actual word, I would have equated "unitheism" more with "pantheism" than with "panentheism."

I've not yet been under the impression that my favourite acronymist has ever tried to avoid confusion.  The About.com crowd never could figure out what LGK was talking about, and it wasn't for lack of trying.  The thread died early in 2010, may Good, Orderly and Desireable rest its soul.

From keeping tabs on the thread, I'm happy I did not take part in what would have been a hair-ripping experience of trying to extract some sense out of Rev King.  As one poster explain, Rev King is apparently trying to "deify" the universe.  So, if you want to call the universe "God", then fine.  The really strange part, is when Rev King then goes back and quotes the damn Bible.  Now we're back to square 1.

I can't blame the About.com crowd from getting annoyed, and I certainly wouldn't have lasted as long in the pointless game as they did.  They showed incredible patience, and some pretty clever lines, in dealing with our Rev King.  I congratuate them, and hope that their hair is starting to grow back nicely.

Likewise, but I'm still in a strange spiritual world where I'm not sure if my own current belief system is pantheist or panentheist so I figured it was just me.

Mendalla

LOL!!!

There are days when I find myself wondering why I gave up on atheism! In some ways it's so much easier! God forgive me! (And no comments chansen!)

There are days when I'm tempted to just give in and call myself an atheist. However, I do have this sense of a bigger, interconnected whole that is somehow "sacred" or "divine" so I'm still thinking one of the "p" words would be a better fit than "atheism".

Mendalla

Hi Rev. Steven Davis,

Did you just say atheists are easy?

That won't stir up any trouble I'm sure.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Well, to be honest, based on past experience ...

Actually, maybe that IS best left to a separate thread!  

Atheists can do it without supervision.

Hi chansen,

Performance anxiety?

Grace and peace to you.

John

RevLGKing wrote:

"Perhaps we can have a consensus and think of the 'uni' prefix as indicating the alpha (the beginning) point, the no thing, or the zero point; and the 'pan' prefix as indicating the omega (large O, or end) point, that which is without borders and includes all that we call creation"

I don't understand what this means, standing alone or in context of the whole post. 

Could you, LGK, please clarify this for me?  Are unitheism and panentheism distinctly different?  Distinctly seperate?  Somehow, I am getting the impression that they are interchangeable.  This confuses me, as upthread Arminius (I think)  "wrote that unitheism is a form of atheism."  (forgive me, everyone, I think that is a paraphrased statement as well).

And somewhere above, LGK wrote that (I paraphrase) "unitheism is a panentheism doublet". 

Please correct me if I have misquoted this statement. 

Certainly, I did not understand it and I was wondering if you could clarify this statement ?

Clearly, I am befuddled.  Someone please help me to understand. 

I can't enter a dialogue if I don't understand the language :)

No, we've never spent a Sunday morning inviting anyone to watch.

redhead

How wonderful to see you . You look as pretty as ever .

Here is a link LGK gave us from the  Center for Process Studies.  Its a forum he's posting on. I haven't taken the time to read it all, 4 pages.  LGK is original so perhaps he finds it fitting to lump unitheism and panentheism together. I've no idea. Maybe we'll get a clue here....I think LGK is concerned about panentheism being confused with pantheism. To be honest, lots of this goes over my head. I read it but I find process theology difficult if I really delve into its beliefs  which I've googled  in the past.

IMO, unitheism is a doublet of panentheism--see http://www.ctr4process.org/relationality/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=261
 

Hi chansen,

We've been known to go out to the highways and the byways inviting everyone to come.

Grace and peace to you.

John

The simple difference with pantheism is all is God there is no ontological reality other than God and panentheism says there is ontological reality to both world and God - God is in the world and the world is in God - and God is more than the world.... to rephrase the world has its independent reality ( whereas in pantheism it does not) and God has independent reality from the world( whereas in panetheism God does not).

Also panentheism suggests all reality is relational and God is the supreme example of relationality.  An analogy - we are related to a brother ( sister) but each of us have our own as well as our shared experience and each of own experiences is unigue to each of us.

To put it another way - we are a self-in- the world. 

I don't think King helps clarify with unitheism - it seems to mean a unity to be real is only in God - as in universe - one and only one reality.  I do appreciate the attempt to offer a another way of speaking about God but I am yet to be persuased that unitheism works.

As well I have said it is a misuse of categories of language to reduce unitheism or any form of theism to athiesm.  In some theological discussions what is called apophatic ( negative theology) has been translated in German as atheist - However it is a form of saying what God is not to argue against ideals like omnipotent - as one teacher wrote - omipotent and other theological mistakes ( hartshorne).

Thank you for that, George. You have more or less confirmed for me that I know what pantheism and panentheism are about (I was starting to wonder when LGK equated unitheism with panentheism which still doesn't really make a great deal of logical sense to me.) I still have to read the article cited by Mendalla, but from what I've seen on some of the threads on which LGK has posted, I'm still quite in the dark about what exactly unitheism is and how it relates to the various other "theisms" that are out there, or whether it's even a "necessary" theism (if there is such a thing as a "necessary" theism) when other "theisms" seem to be able to say pretty much the same thing in a much more coherent way. Obviously unitheism "works" for LGK, but I'm in a fog on it.

Still not entirely sure what the "dialogue" is supposed to be about - but it's been interesting thus far!

About 'doublet'. When in doubt about the meaning of a word, always consult a good dictionary. I have World Book Dictionary. It gives the Latin, Greek, etc., derivatives.

Online you can use:

http://www.yourdictionary.com/doublet

dou·blet (dub′lit)

noun

1. a man's closefitting jacket with or without sleeves, worn chiefly from the 14th to the 16th cent.
2. either of a pair of similar things
3. a pair; couple
4. a pair of thrown dice with identical sides uppermost
5. a simulated gem produced by cementing together two smaller stones, crystals, or pieces of colored glass
6. Linguis. either of two words that derive ultimately from the same source but by different processes (Ex.: regal, royal; skirt, shirt)
7. Radio dipole ()

========================================

Note meanings 2 and 3. This is how I use the word.

Redhead, I hope this helps.

Rev. Steven Davis

quote:

"Still not entirely sure what the "dialogue" is supposed to be about - but it's been interesting thus far!"

My boat is often sailing through the fog. I don't expect to ever see the shore when I read some of  LGK's posts. Still I go back for more.......

LGK quote on the Brainmeta forum:

"Keep in mind that much of what I write will be a repeat of what I have written before. It is hard to believe that I have been writing to this forum--How long now? Is it since 1999? Or before? I can't recall."

Rev. King-

I feel your pain on this.

As I have aged (turning 40 this week) I have often chuckled at me after hearing myself say "old man things" like my Dad and Grandpa used to say: "The world is going to Hell in a handbasket," "Walked uphill both ways to school in the snow," etc.

With that disclaimer, the thing I have identified - at least here in America - that frustrates me the most is that no one seems interested in communication, compromise, or evolution of ideas.  The majority of people seem expressly interested in things that support or reaffirm or "prove" the opinions they already have.  Conservatives watch Fox and take it all as truth, liberals read Huffington Post and take it as gospel....  I think this will be the inevitable downfall of America.

It breaks my heart that so few seem open to new ideas or interested in expanding their understanding.  Maybe I'm just an ex-idealistic cranky old Geezer and am deluded in thinking that it hasn't been this way all along.

With blessings,

Matthew

Stardust, thanks for your kind, gracious and GOD-like words .

Please, tell all friends here, that I did not create you as a 'doublet' of me.    You are uniquely you--as are we all--thank GOD!

But seriously, I think you were the one who encouraged me to post to WC.

Also seriously, way back, I concocted the word 'unitheism'--to avoid any confusion with 'pantheism'--before I had heard of panentheism and before I knew of the Website by my artist friend, Warren Farr--we now confer on Face Book. Later, it all came together.

Meanwhile, I like to think: In GOD as Love, we are all ONE.

Matthew, Thanks!

For a moment, I thought I got it. Now I realize, I didn't get anything.

I like similes and analogies to explain my beliefs to people. Traditional theism views God like a mother with a child, while panentheism views God like a pregnant woman.

God is the mother, the fetus is the universe. It cannot exist without the mother yet it has its own mind.

Deism believes that God is like a mother who doesn't believe in parenting.

Unitheism is....

LGK

LOL....!!!!!!!

quote:

Please, tell all friends here, that I did not create you as a 'doublet' of me.   .

Friends, let it be known..... on the 13th. of September in the year of our Lord 2010, that LGK did not create stardust  as a doublet. I only know LGK from reading his posts here on the WC. I was impressed when he first posted and I asked him to join us.

Your quote:

"In GOD as Love, we are all ONE."

Yes....yes....play it again Sam!

.... like a woman who wants to be a mother but can't be a mother because the woman is already everything that there can possibly be?

I do understand how to find definitions of words, and I do like to use the OED as a source.

What I do not understand is how unitheism is a panentheism couple or pair.

Was your intention to state that unitheism and panentheism are either of a pair of similar things ?

I am going to accept that unitheism and panentheism are similar.  BUT NOT THE SAME. So here are the questions, RevLGKing:

HOW is unitheism DIFFERENT than panentheism?  For that matter, HOW is unitheism DIFFERENT than pantheism?

Is unitheism monistic?

Thanks in advance.

As you say below,  "I am going to accept that unitheism and panentheism are similar. " Fair comment.

IMO, unitheism and panentheism are one and the same. This is what I mean by 'doublet'. Pantheism--with its focus on matter as primary--however, is quite different from panentheism.

"Was your intention to state that unitheism and panentheism are either of a pair of similar things ?" I would say: They are one and the same.

Monism?

From what the philosophers say, it is quite a complex topic. I assume monists want us to think of the universe as being made of one substance, or principle. Contrary to dualists and pluralists, monists want us to think of reality as  an indivisible and universal organism. Sounds OK to me and not unlike unitheism.

Check out:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/monism/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monism

 I think I'm going to have to go off and have a dialogue with a couple of extra strength Motrins.  I'll be back once the drugs start to take effect.  

Pantheism is really, then, an illusion. If God is viewed as matter, creation, with nothing before and nothing after, then that God must be an illusion. The very desk we sit at, hard and solid as it seems, is but frozen energy. So in Pantheism is God just the energy that forms matter? Now this would be an interesting postulation considering that one of the definitions of energy is that it is something that cannot be created or destroyed. Where was this energy before creation?