The old adage that god is all and all is god sounds something more acute as describing the camaraderie of the three Musketeers as “all for one and one for all” rather then an accurate metaphysical construct toward the nature of God which is demonstrably, fundamentally and practically flawed as incomprehensible and philosophically irreconcilable on so many levels.
First of all how is it possible for an infinite god to be anything but infinite with a corruption or change such as a fragmentation with a multiplicity of finite parts as a contradiction to gods ontology? Moreover what brought about this illusory state of ignorance away from the absolute sense of god to begin with as becoming a schizophrenic disunity? In other words how did this essential reality become an illusion? Thus if God is anything less that than ultimate then essentially god is not ultimate.
Likewise how reassuring is it that this disjointedness could ever be ultimately rejoined once again with this possibility of a relapse towards a cyclical system of samsara? Furthermore with the current population explosion what proof is there that these temporary and illusory material modes of existence are moving towards extinction resulting in a absolute state of union?
Another dilemma to the pantheistic view is that the ultimate or absolute sense of god is portrayed as being amoral and yet humanity, as god, functions as moral creatures. Again how is it possible that this higher form of amorality is able to devolve into a lower form of morality? Yet Hindus are encouraged to behave benevolently towards others which intuitively seems contrary to reaching their final amoral state. Essentially their actions, not their pantheistic philosophy, pragmatically suggest that such philanthropy is of a greater, rather than a lesser, order in comparison to its amoral counterpart especially as it contributes to the very survival of civilization, culture and society. Thus to accommodate their theory as a stepping stone in reaching nirvana or moksha is plainly irreconcilable to how they value and conduct their day to day lives. Also how can moral distinctions be illusory and virtually meaningless and then somehow mysteriously transform these meritorious deeds as making them meaningful or substantial which seems to be more like magic than ultimate truth? In reality, according to pantheists belief, there should be no need in differentiating between the acts of Adolf Hitler and say Mother Teresa since there is no real difference and to otherwise object would be to criticize god. Yet which pantheist lives beyond moral attributes as idly standing by while being morally violated which again is a testament towards the realism of a universal justice system as deliberating right from wrong? To say there is no distinction in the value between a friend giving a gift and for a thief to steal that gift is just plainly dishonest and a lie. Can you imagine a world and society that is governed without moral boundaries as having to live in a lawless state of anarchy? Basically the pantheist innately understands that there is something real and significant to having ethical standards for social engagement as something which they can not and should never be liberated from or avoid and which survives even beyond death or the grave as believing in the karmic forces of retribution which shows that moral values, according to Hindu beliefs, are significantly relevant in understanding the consequence of immorality as violating the universal principles of right and wrong/good and evil. Finally in this regards I am not saying that Hindus are immoral but what I am establishing is that they really don’t have a firm basis to act accordingly if such behavior is essentially unreal or illusional and to accommodate their belief as stating that this is merely a necessary means to the end takes special pleading which is falsified by their lifestyle. Finally to say that god is amoral is making the concept of god equivalent to that of an insane sociopath.
Another matter is that the pantheist will reject reason and logic such as with the law of non contradiction as stating that “A and non A “ are one and the same reality, and yet their daily living does not coincide with this belief system nor does their pantheistic philosophy which supports a dualism of what is true and false based on differentiating between reality and illusion. Some examples of this unfounded theory would be for the pantheist to assert that a person does not exist which ironically requires a person to exist to make such claims. Also it specifies that there are actual infinities within a time/space dimension which is a fantasy and a myth that only resides within mathematical formulations. Moreover to declare in their limited state that god is unknowable is self defeating as well as making an omniscient and absolute statement about knowledge as a finite creature.
Additionally, if the pantheist was consistent with their own doctrinal beliefs it should cause them to be skeptical of their very own statements which come from finite beings and who could be deluded themselves to invent the concept of man as being divine. Therefore they can’t really even trust their very own system of thought as being subjected to its limitations as depending on the illusory minds of human teachers and texts that may be delusional in their content of which I strongly suspect as this whole philosophical system is basically and self evidently counterintuitive as being unnatural and irregular especially as there is no confirmation or effective demonstration that supports these beliefs as being falsified through the actions of their daily lives. After all what evidence does the pantheist have to suggest that the material world is unreal? What verifiable method do they have to prove their point against a naturalistic reality? Moreover which pantheist would dare cross the street without looking both ways for traffic as only believing that vehicles are just a figment of their imagination? Consequently, it is much more conceivable to believe in a physical reality then the science fiction of the Matrix which is only the creative illusion of a Hollywood production. In addition to all of this, to state that we are merely living in a dream like fantasy world that isn’t really real but only appears that way is just plain nonsense. Thus this whole kind of irrationality regarding illusions is just unsustainable and abnormal in showing a lesser degree of probability or plausibility then its antithesis.
The other unrealistic aspect of their philosophy is that individuality or personality such as the conscience, will, emotions, and intellect are likewise illusional and are opposite to the simplistic nature and character of god and yet in reality what person does not function this way unless they are comatose? It appears that this oversimplification of god is unconvincing in light of the cosmological and teleological evidences regarding the complexity of design and origins which I have previously written about as well in other articles.
Moreover to say that god is more congruent to that of a rock or a stick basically signifies that humanity is really lagging behind on the evolutionary scale of progression towards godhood. It seems like going backwards in reincarnation is a move forward as aligning oneself with god.
In regards to this whole god concept it also seems contrary to how some Hindus relate to others as differentiating between the members of their society with a caste system which treats the Dalit as sub-human. Yet to disrespect another representative of god is essentially to disrespect yourself.
Another value within Hindu society is to be tolerant in teaching that “All paths lead to God” which I have already written about in another blog and yet for the nationalistic Hindu to violently react against invading philosophies and religions shows that they really don’t believe or accept this as they see it as a disharmony to their culture by which they vehemently attack other belief systems.
In conclusion this whole methodology towards pantheistic realism is really just a mirage of backwards or reverse engineering to accommodate or manage the struggle of life with its pain, suffering, and death as an attempt to erect a monument as trying to establish an institution to house all of life within the framework of a single structure. It is a reactionary attempt to explain and unify such diversity in life as trying to force a square peg in a round hole and yet it just doesn’t work that way. Therefore to make such claims of orthodoxy without orthopraxy is virtually unreal, unenlightening and unorthodox. Jesus referred to this mentality as hypocrites who pretended to be something they weren’t.
Perhaps this whole conceptual idea of illusion is a way or path of coping with the tragedy and differences of life as giving a sense of hopeful reconciliation. However to believe or desire something no matter how sincere you are does not necessary make something real or unreal for that matter. Respectfully, to think that Hindu society at large is more advanced in enlightenment based on their religious views is contrary and unfounded based on the infirmity of its society which contains many of the world’s lepers and blind which show that such practices and beliefs do not lead to a more enlightened path or society.
Lastly I would like to propose a biblical world view that has been scrutinized and yet shown to be historically and philosophically reliable as a coherent, relevant, and plausible system as an explanation to life as a defining a more probable reality.
The bible offers an overarching explanation to reality as revealing that a eternally transcendent, omniscient and omnipotent God created all realities, both physical and spiritual, with mankind as the pinnacle of His created order. Mankind is made in Gods image, though not God, as sharing in His qualities as a consciously moral and intellectual being who has the volition as a free moral agent and yet in spite of this greatness has paradoxically chose to rebel against the holiness of his Creator causing a corporate split or separation between humanity and God as mankind received a sinful nature. The good news in all of this, is that God as the sovereign potentate, as a personal and merciful being, brought forth Jesus into the world, who as Lord, became flesh and blood to save and redeem mankind in bringing humanity back to God through a reconciliatory and redemptive effort of obedience in giving His physical life as a type of sacrifice to liberate and set free mankind as offering His perfect self on the implement of human suffering, namely the cross. This legally forensic and substitutional transaction satisfied God’s justice in making this transaction a means of payment as securing salvation for those who trust in Him resulting in eternal life and peace with God in unifying us with Him as forgiving humanity in saving us from the final outcome of eternal death which would have otherwise resulted in the perpetual suffering of those who willfully reject this gracious and provisionally kind offering which in the most ultimate sense has eliminated the consequence and outcome of pain and suffering by removing the curse that had once alienated us from God. Conclusively, this may all appear as a mystery of words, terms and concepts but apart from the self attempts of human religion and its rigors of meritorious deeds, those who simply call upon His name will receive complete liberation in this life and the life to come as relationally receiving a glorious and heavenly inheritance.
John 8:36
36 So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.
Mt 11:28-30
28 Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. 29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. 30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.”
How to know God
jesusandjews.com
English
Holman QuickSource Guide to Christian Apologetics, copyright 2006 by Doug Powell, ”Reprinted and used by permission.”
The Holy Bible, English Standard Version® (ESV®) Copyright © 2001 by Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. All rights reserved. ESV Text Edition: 2007