Pantheism denotes any philosophy which claims that god and the universe are identical.
Keywords: Pantheism, Philosophies, Philosophy, Rational, Justification, Assumption, Presupposition, Contradiction, Reason, Universal Truth.
Pantheistic claims are false .
Humans assume the universal truth that all contradictions are false. Any worldview that does not allow for this assumption to be rationally justified is deductively false.
Premise 1: If absolute ultimacy is shared, then universal truth claims are believed without reason.
Premise 2: Under pantheism, absolute ultimacy is shared by the fundamental elements of the universe.
Conclusion: Therefore, under pantheism, universal truth claims are believed without reason.
If pantheistic claims are true, there is no reason to believe universal truth claims, including universal noncontradiction. There is then no reason to believe that contradictory claims are deductively false, thereby making pantheistic claims themselves deductively false.
This Argument from Reason demonstrates that pantheism is false.
In Printed Form
Along with numerous other authors including Don Landis, Bodie Hodge and Roger Patterson, Timothy McCabe contributes analyses of various world religions and cults in this volume from Master Books.
"Why does religion 'permit' murder and why are people so eager to justify murders their people commited?"
The dictionary defines murder as "the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law". I will, throughout this answer, use this definition as what I am referring to when I use the word "murder", and I will assume that this is the definition in view by the questioner. When humans deny their Creator, the God of the Bible, there is no longer any objective moral authority, or highest moral law.
"How can chaos create order? That's impossible without intelligent direction. Atheism is emotional, not intellectual."
Precisely: atheism is emotional, not intellectual. Atheism denies any rational source for our intellect, thereby denying the rationality of rationality. It prohibits any possible reason for reasoning. It necessitates an absolute rejection of justified belief and thus, a rejection of intelligence altogether.
"Since there can be no evidence for something that can't be measured, is it at least fair to say that there is no empirical evidence for god, and therefore no reason to believe he exists?"
If there is no reason to believe something that can't be measured, why would anyone believe that "there is no reason to believe something that can't be measured"? This argument is self-defeating. If we accept it, we must apply it to itself. Once we apply it to itself, we see that it does not meet its own criteria. Then, we must reject it. In other words, if we accept your argument, we must reject your argument on its own terms. I hope this is clear. God bless.