Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
If I were to respond to these it would be a significant, and very large, detraction from the thread topic. Is that what you want? At present there is nothing on topic that I can respond to.I have said this because only the sacred books give such information and descriptions about such a God, but each has a unique character (Allah is different from Jehovah who is different than Shangdi who is different from Shiva, and that in fact this can not be more than fruit of the imagination of some ancient men, you said that 1 MGB is correctly identified by all, while "many others MGBS are mistaken", and how do you know that non-Christian religions have received many mistaken MGBS? You are assuming that only Christian revelation is general. A Muslim could say the same, and would accuse the many MGBS of the other religions as false. In fact I changed the OP, wrongly I got a misconception of preferences when I started the topic.
And what would be the explanation? Sorry but I do not see how this can prove that there is a personal God (specifically the Christian God), I do not want to be insulting here, but that would be the same as saying that it is better to have an invisible or imaginary friend that cannot fail to existing.
Scripture itself gives the idea of eternal torment, as in Matthew 25:41, 25:46, Mark 9:48, and so on.
Hindus, Buddhists and Muslims have similar experiences; and I ask those same questions.
So the best suggestion is that we should be agnostic about it! but we have no idea how a personal divinity of the "supernatural dimension" (whatever that actually means) "the first cause" could have done this or that, even though we understand all this is no reason to think it was a being supernatural who did this, even if science does not know everything, is no reason to say that it was "a supernatural God who did" in addition to the hypothesis of "mystery" or the hypothesis that it was the supernatural God who did that! If the universe was created by the Christian God because we do not see even a single evidence or vestige of who he was he created the universe? Almost no theory of the universe is explained with "God did it."Well, unless you missed my point, we have no empirical evidence that something can exist without being consciously thought of. Everything we think exists, is only so thought because humans are aware of it. So there is no evidence that anything can exist outside of contemplation of a Consciousness. It is a catch-22, but means that the idea of matter existing outside of, or irrespective to, perception of said matter, is a a priori construction that goes against any attainable evidence. What exists must have been perceived, in a sense; so what has not been perceived, cannot be shown to exist. This is why the idea that we can 'discover' things that we assume already exist, implies that we are working in a metaphysical model under some form of Consciousness. This is in fact what Empiricism thus implies - which was no problem to the mediaeval clerics that invented Scientific Method, but is problematic to a modern materialist who would trumpet 'evidence', but willing to assume things like this in the teeth thereof- where no evidence is, nor can be, forthcoming.
But I think that the science of gaps argument can indeed bring an assumption that I say may be more coherent than many theistic arguments that are the arguments of the God of gaps! In the past it was like this too, many people had no way to prove phenomena and the other things we now know and we have scientific explanations for it.'Science of the Gaps' argument? Such a theory would have to part ways with the idea of Scientific Method to do so, as it would be thoroughly metaphysical. We cannot discover something without assuming it already exists, just unknown. We have no way of showing something can exist, if unknown to all consciousnesses. This is therefore no longer a 'scientist' doing so, but a philosopher.
You cornered me here, but I also do not see why Faith is the better position than agnosticism in relation to these things that we call "unperceived," but there are people who can also say that if we keep the faith it is there that never we will have solutions or explanations for these anthropic problems, because when we have solutions and answers to possible problems I think that is where faith ends!A lot of what you are saying is jargonesque. Replace God with Energy, but you still need to determine what is meant by whichever term you use. How would you do so? This is akin to the assumption that the stars move in Aether, and then describing said Aether, but it is all conjectural. Or Phlogiston.
The idea is something must fundamentally exist. Everything we know of, is perceived, and we have no way to determine that something unperceived can exist. You could argue it could, certainly, but the argument is not built on much of a foundation. Assuming Consciousness is central to the Ground of Being, nicely solves many of our issues. It might not be true, but hey, that is where Faith comes in. If we deny it though, our anthropic problems remain fundamentally insoluble in any case. More so, as you have to assume existence without consciousness is possible, if not deny consciousness in entirety, to remain coherent.
It is the Sceptics problem - you have to draw a line in the sand somewhere.
Would not this be polytheism instead of pantheism? The problem is that even the pantheists have difficulty "encoding" the term pantheism, but in my pantheistic view there is no supernatural element to be able to say who is the greater (when I say greater I mean a transcendent deity) being that I I only believe in what is natural, I do not believe there is a supernatural divinity, so I reject the idea of having a notion of something greater and more transcendent. But once I apologize for not being able to answer your point comprehensively.CS Lewis has a good argument called the Argument from Reason which is also applicable here.
So you are confusing Pantheism and Panentheism. The latter has God as a sort of World Soul, and in a weak form like Palamism, isn't incompatible with Christianity. There matter and God aren't separate, but God isn't fundamentally the same as His Creation. Pantheism says the world, matter, everything, is God. This is the underlying idea of many non-dualistic mystics, where I and That are indistinguishable.
CS Lewis says that the very fact that we can differentiate an I, from the remaining whole, means that there is a greater and a lesser. With that practical Pantheism dies, for the lesser is dependant on the greater. In Pilgrim's Regress, John learns from Wisdom a form of pantheism, but when such a philosophy is applied in practice, it must become religion. For thinking the noumenal as a part of an I, must mean areas thereof are external to it for an I to exist.
I fear I am garbling my response a bit, but look up the later part of Pilgrim's regress - from Wisdom up till where John travels in the canyon. It is the end of Book VII and the beginning of Book VIII. It is in the public sphere, so you could just download it. It addresses much of this pantheist thing in an allegorical manner.
Thinking well, I can not see a difference since some ancient religions like Hinduism say that Brahman is everything and everything is Brahman, it is not different to say that the universe and matter are everything, in fact these forces are the elements of the universe itself and is not beyond them, sorry if I'm being inconsistent or even irrational, but that's how I see it.but @OBuscador, you seem at times to be talking about pantheistic cosmic forces. Can you explain what these forces are and what reason we have to believe they exist while avoiding a more classical view? You would need to for your version of pantheism to be equally rational to other approaches.
I'd make the small correction and assert that the fallacy lies in "isolation a subset of the cosmos and identifying it NOT with the pantheistic God...", but I think we basically came to an agreement.I'm not sure I agree. Isolating a subset of the cosmos and identifying it with the pantheistic God over and against the remainder is clearly fallacious. I just wasn't sure what distinction you were speaking to above.
Again, I can only state that this is a point that would need to be taken up with real proponents of this position. Only they would be able to explain their real take on it.I don't agree or else I don't follow. I'll just reiterate the simple argument already given in both of my posts to you:
Pick a premise if you disagree. (1) is tautological and (2) was directly supported with SEP. It may be that some pantheists believe that existence itself is necessary (whatever that precisely means) but I see no reason to believe that all pantheists believe this nor that this is even a widely-held pantheist proposition.
- If the pantheist believes that everything is contingent then they also believe that God is contingent.
- Some pantheists believe that everything is contingent.
- Therefore some pantheists believe that God is contingent.
Some forms of Christianity deny that Jesus is divine, and still accept all the other concepts.I don't think it's that complicated. Either you believe in necessary being or you don't. The question doesn't even require delving into what form that necessary being takes. Again, my point is that some pantheists don't believe in necessary being at all. SEP concurs. Modern forms of pantheism are often more concerned with creativity, development, and evolution than necessity.
It was as I said in my response to @Quid est Veritas? the problem is that pantheism itself is not encoded system (but even so I dont answer for all Pantheists) and I think many pantheists do not even care so much about this "origin and need question" (as well as this forms of Christianity that you mentioned), in my opinion I think the "creation" is auto-poiesis.But it does seem to me that this being "more concerned with creativity, development and evolution" is a question of focus, not philosophical basis. Just like some forms of Christianity are more concerned with loving their neighbors than with pondering the nature of Jesus.
We would need to find a pantheist of that variant to get a better answer.
This link has little relevance to what I was saying. I am sorry to say, but also quite a poorly argued article - essentially it consists of a silly strawman fallacy, going so far as to give an exonym to it, followed by Petitio Principii.Quid est Veritas? when you have time read the text of this link: https://infidels.org/library/modern/steven_conifer/ac.html
Again you are coming with a value judgement of 'best'. Where does this come from? You seem to be seriously misunderstanding me, as I am offering no proof of God nor using the existence of Consciousness to support thus. What I am saying, is that we have no evidence, of any sort, of existence outside of conscious experience, nor is it possible to have any. This is implicit in the traditional Empiricism of Science itself, even more so in relativity theory and quantum theory, where the nature of the observation, and of the observer, impacts the position or length or speed of the observed as well.So the best suggestion is that we should be agnostic about it! but we have no idea how a personal divinity of the "supernatural dimension" (whatever that actually means) "the first cause" could have done this or that, even though we understand all this is no reason to think it was a being supernatural who did this, even if science does not know everything, is no reason to say that it was "a supernatural God who did" in addition to the hypothesis of "mystery" or the hypothesis that it was the supernatural God who did that! If the universe was created by the Christian God because we do not see even a single evidence or vestige of who he was he created the universe? Almost no theory of the universe is explained with "God did it."
I do not think the Argument of Consciousness is proof of the existence of the "personal God." I know that in your points you not said something like "I believe it was God who did it", so that does not answer your points. But I also see no reason to think that it was an omnipotent, omniscient and personal deity that created the universe just because we did not have all the information on how our Universe works.
How can an argument based on wishful thinking, with no factual basis, be more coherent? Religious arguments tend to be based on inductive reasoning or on revelation (which even if you reject said revelation, is at least data); but to think 'Future Science' which cannot be articulated nor can be based on any current available data, is somehow more coherent, is flagrantly baseless.But I think that the science of gaps argument can indeed bring an assumption that I say may be more coherent than many theistic arguments that are the arguments of the God of gaps! In the past it was like this too, many people had no way to prove phenomena and the other things we now know and we have scientific explanations for it.
Again you are using a value judgement of 'better'. In what way? What do you mean? What is your frame of reference? My point was that from a radical sceptical viewpoint, nothing is certain. So everyone has to set up an axiom somewhere, so 'have faith in' something, in order to establish anything as being knoweable.You cornered me here, but I also do not see why Faith is the better position than agnosticism in relation to these things that we call "unperceived," but there are people who can also say that if we keep the faith it is there that never we will have solutions or explanations for these anthropic problems, because when we have solutions and answers to possible problems I think that is where faith ends!
How does your 'pantheism' then differ from ontological naturalism? I really do not understand the position you are trying to argue from. Could you elucidate it a bit more thoroughly?Would not this be polytheism instead of pantheism? The problem is that even the pantheists have difficulty "encoding" the term pantheism, but in my pantheistic view there is no supernatural element to be able to say who is the greater (when I say greater I mean a transcendent deity) being that I I only believe in what is natural, I do not believe there is a supernatural divinity, so I reject the idea of having a notion of something greater and more transcendent. But once I apologize for not being able to answer your point comprehensively.
Thinking well, I can not see a difference since some ancient religions like Hinduism say that Brahman is everything and everything is Brahman, it is not different to say that the universe and matter are everything, in fact these forces are the elements of the universe itself and is not beyond them, sorry if I'm being inconsistent or even irrational, but that's how I see it.
Please excuse my ignorance, but what is a petitio principii?This link has little relevance to what I was saying. I am sorry to say, but also quite a poorly argued article - essentially it consists of a silly strawman fallacy, going so far as to give an exonym to it, followed by Petitio Principii.
That's why I think it's better to be agnostic about "perceived" or "non perceived", since we do not know or have an "accurate" perception of what it is, and most likely we will never know by following its reasoning (I'm sorry if I'm misunderstanding you here, really I do not want to misrepresent your reasoning, but it's because I have a certain difficulty responding in a clear way).Again you are coming with a value judgement of 'best'. Where does this come from? You seem to be seriously misunderstanding me, as I am offering no proof of God nor using the existence of Consciousness to support thus. What I am saying, is that we have no evidence, of any sort, of existence outside of conscious experience, nor is it possible to have any. This is implicit in the traditional Empiricism of Science itself, even more so in relativity theory and quantum theory, where the nature of the observation, and of the observer, impacts the position or length or speed of the observed as well.
So why be agnostic about it, when all the Empiric evidence is in favour of something having to be perceived to be operative? The unperceived does not exist to human experience, and what is currently unknown, essentially only becomes existent in practice, when perceived.
So when speaking of metaphysical considerations, the philosophic onus of proof lies on those claiming that something can exist when not perceived or brought in relation to consciousness. All of Scientific and Empiric Evidence is squarely in opposition, so if this is grounds for agnosticism on this idea
No, because they proved not to be effective against various diseases.then should we be agnostic on homeopathy or crystal healing too?
To be honest I dont see differences my form of pantheism with ontological materialism but if I say that somehow I do not admire the universe because of its complexity and beauty I would be lying, someone might even call me a "spiritual pantheist" but I do not use this word because I do not really know what "spiritual" or "supernatural" means (I do not mean the etymological meanings but what they actually represent).How does your 'pantheism' then differ from ontological naturalism? I really do not understand the position you are trying to argue from. Could you elucidate it a bit more thoroughly?
All right, I'd be happy if you explained the differences to me when you got back from your trip.Hinduism is extremely different than the sort of pantheism you're proposing--we can talk about it when I get home, if you want, but it's too complicated to go into right now.
The only difference of mine for an atheist is that I admire both the universe and all creation that I use the term god (which I also call an impersonal god) to define it, and the atheist does not!Your pantheism is starting to look more and more like atheism, which would obviously change the conversation considerably.
I'd make the small correction and assert that the fallacy lies in "isolation a subset of the cosmos and identifying it NOT with the pantheistic God...", but I think we basically came to an agreement.
It may be that my position as an outsider either makes it easier for me to identify this "mistake", or leads me to misunderstand the theists' criticisms in these cases... I don't know.
But from my perspective it sure seems that many theists have problems to no apply their own concept of a transcendent God when addressing a system where such a concept is non-existent.
Again, I can only state that this is a point that would need to be taken up with real proponents of this position. Only they would be able to explain their real take on it.
But still... even if some pantheists believe that, would that be a major problem? Would it not simply add another point to the differences between theism, just like the transcendence point?
And I do think it is very complicated.There is no coherent philosophical concept of non-existence, and thus it is always complicated when you try to talk about the absence of existence.
We would need to find a pantheist of that variant to get a better answer.
I agree. That is my main objection to terms like "impersonal God".Probably, but "God" in a Western context usually implies agency and distinctness from the world, so low-level discussions of pantheism will inevitably make such assumptions.
Oh, I didn't want to imply that they are wrong or untrustworthy. It's just that without a "live" clarification option, it is too easy to misinterprete those statements.I find SEP to be a trustworthy source.
Too much thinking for me this early.No, of course it isn't a major problem. I just mentioned it because it is a real distinction and depending on the OP's definition of 'better' may supply some kind of touchstone for the conversation. I don't really want to enter into the fray here, but I think a necessary God is better than a contingent God.
Difficult. In both necessity or contingency you cannot escape the concept of "nothing", and if that isn't clear, the other two lack some of their basis.So long as there are coherent philosophical concepts of necessity and contingency of being I think it works.
A fallacious argument that assumes the validity of its conclusion, for its premise or subsequent propositions. "Begging the question" is derived from a loose translation of the term.Please excuse my ignorance, but what is a petitio principii?
That's why I think it's better to be agnostic about "perceived" or "non perceived", since we do not know or have an "accurate" perception of what it is, and most likely we will never know by following its reasoning (I'm sorry if I'm misunderstanding you here, really I do not want to misrepresent your reasoning, but it's because I have a certain difficulty responding in a clear way).
No, because they proved not to be effective against various diseases.
So is a 'sense of wonder' a property of the universe then, perhaps? This comes down to how you perceive your qualia. Is an Awe-inspiring thing creating awe in you, or is its ability to inspire Awe an inherent property? This is how the ancients understood some of their gods. A lion provoked Fear, but both its ability to do so, and our experience of said Fear, was coupled to an extraneous concept of Fear - articulated as a god. Fear entered us, as it were.To be honest I dont see differences my form of pantheism with ontological materialism but if I say that somehow I do not admire the universe because of its complexity and beauty I would be lying, someone might even call me a "spiritual pantheist" but I do not use this word because I do not really know what "spiritual" or "supernatural" means (I do not mean the etymological meanings but what they actually represent).
Not sure that I should weigh-in here but you have shown some penchant for investigation so here goes...But I think that the science of gaps argument can indeed bring an assumption that I say may be more coherent than many theistic arguments that are the arguments of the God of gaps! In the past it was like this too, many people had no way to prove phenomena and the other things we now know and we have scientific explanations for it.
Let us first get our terms straight. What is meant by Science? The term can be quite protean, with layered meaning, from broad popular usage meaning basically knowledge or 'fact', to more technical and correct usages. Generally, I mean a systematic body of empiric knowledge derived via Scientific Method, by the term. Science is grounded in Scepticism, that all discoveries have to be reproducible, have to be doubted.@Quid est Veritas?, you actually wrote many things that I have to actually agree with most of your points, only I did not understand when you said: "Science arose in Western Christendom."
I think it is incorrect to say that without the presuppositions of Christianity modern science, morality or anything else of the sort would not exist, then it means that science works only because the "God of Christianity" proposed this laws? It is true when it says that science had a revival in Christian Europe, however, the Renaissance was a revitalization of the classical Greek and Roman principles, and a break with the theology of earlier centuries as you yourself suggested. Of course, even if it were true that modern science has its origin in Christianity, none of this advocates in favor of any religious doctrine, because with Christianity or without Christianity society would evolve into knowledge sooner or later. I hope I did not misunderstand.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?