Thesis: theistic god
Synthesis: the Absolute/the One
When will the fedora and auereole tippers realize there is a third option that transcends both?
You've got an external, personal God, and you've got atheists who (rightly) shit on the idea of an essentially morally good, harmonic cosmic order. As Jung says, good and evil are two sides of the same coin, God is in a way, also the devil. And the devil God. The point is one must transcend duality to the pure Ground of reality itself which conditions all dualities
God is not the greatest imaginable ideal. There is an experience of Ultimate Reality that is fundamentally ineffable and beyond petty moralisms and tribalistic religious squabbling. There is a story of the Buddha who visits Brahma, the Indian theistic god, and pretty much tells him to go Fuck himself, since even the highest, most sublime celestial existences are still fundamentally conditioned (think about it, even God must depend on his existing to be God). The Absolute is what is beyond all categories, all description . Rooting yourself in this principle endows you with a transcendental integrity that nothing can take away from you.
OP, don't listen to these guys.
This synthesis, natura naturata/ natura naturans is the agenda all forces in society push for - no matter if they realize it or not, for centuries - this hegelian dialectic.
Atheists get butmad because they interpret it as fundamentalist agenda, and religious people are triggered because they see it as an attack on faith.
In the ultimate sens, this anon gets it:
Hegel literally said history is the process by which the Absolute comes to know itself. We are atoms of this Absolute, and our test is to realize the eternal in a temporal universe, not project preconceptions, theories, systems, and categories on What-Is. As Goethe says, "do not, I beg you, look for anything beyond phenomena. They are themselves their own lesson."
It's just about always being mindful of the Source that everything comes from
>[Man] is too sensuous to have the courage to venture to be spirit and endure [suffering]. However vain and conceited men may be, they have nevertheless for the most part a very lowly conception of themselves, that is to say, they have no conception of being spirit, the absolute of all that a man can be...
>In case one were to think of a house, consisting of cellar, ground-floor, so tenanted, or rather so arranged, that it was planned for a distinction of rank between the dwellers of rank between the dwellers on the several floors; and in case one were to make a comparison between such a house and what it means to be a man- then unfortunately this is the sort and ludicrous condition of the majority of men, that in their own house they prefer to live in the cellar.
>There is a story of the Buddha who visits Brahma, the Indian theistic god, and pretty much tells him to go Fuck himself, since even the highest, most sublime celestial existences are still fundamentally conditioned (think about it, even God must depend on his existing to be God).
I heard about this.
Monotheists: know the One True God.
Polytheists/Pagans: worship fallen angels and demons
Atheists: retards, a product of the enlightenment. "proclaiming themselves to be wise they became fools" etc
>New Age hippies: satanic deception, subjectivity & relativism, communism in a colorful package
>what is negative theology
>In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God
I'm telling you your God is even more perfect and beautiful than anything imaginable and you just keep drawing the curtains to keep the light out
The problem with theists and atheists is that they think there's only two answers to the question of "Does God exist?" - it's not a polar question.
The nature of God as a being, entity or "thing" is, in my view, a misconception. There is no supernatural element to God. The issue with my view is that it's very difficult to explain to somebody who doesn't already believe it.
> The point is one must transcend duality to the pure Ground of reality itself which conditions all dualities
How does one do this, and know that one isn't just playing with abstractions?
> There is an experience of Ultimate Reality that is fundamentally ineffable
> even the highest, most sublime celestial existences are still fundamentally conditioned
> The Absolute is what is beyond all categories, all description
How is it coherent to talk of "experience" of an unconditioned object? When we take away the law-like regularities that are conditions of the unified, structured whole called "experience," how can experience of any thing remain?
> It is not a being because it is beyond being and Nonbeing, existence and non-existence. It is the unspeakable
> It is not a being
> It is
> it is beyond being and Nonbeing
> it is
> It is the unspeakable
Yet we're speaking about it?
Hot and cold are the polarities of temperature. Good and evil are polarities of behavior, intention, emotion, and thought, one selfish and one selfless, expansion and contraction, positive and negative. When you don't project human abstractions on phenomena, there is nothing qualitatively good or evil, there is only the "is", the pure suchness of things. NDE testimonies report one's life review doesn't occur from some moralistic vantage, but objective. One sees not what happened in the minds of others., but the act itself in its naked truth.
And you can't, that's why it's ineffable. Try to meditating and come back to me. you can only speak of the experience in paradox or roundabout ways. All you know is it's something infinitely pristine, infinitely purs
Of course, I can only point to it in my speaking. Eventually we can't even say what it is, but only what it is not. Kataphotic god vs. apophatic god. Eventually the only answer is silence
In Judaism, God is the boss of satan (see Job), there is no dualism to transcend.
In the Kabbalah, Ein Sof is the incomprehensible absolute endless infinite infinite of infinity. The Zohar goes as far as to even call him just Ein as well, the non-existent, because he so transcends human understanding as to be practically non-existent to us.
In this thread, OP is a faggot.
>Enjoying my life and the rules we all impose on ourselves to let this happen isn't nihilism
yes, I know. and that's the problem. if you're an atheist, logically you must be a nihilist.
but as you said, they aren't nihilists, which shows they don't actually care about what is true and provable, but just want a way to justify actions that theists would call sinful.
>there is purpose only if someone gives it to me
Okay then, your purpose is to dress like a girl and suck my dick.
t. Hyperdimensional being who intersects the 3D universe in the form of Anon
>>there is purpose only if someone gives it to me
>implying that was my argument
there's not a purpose because just someone tells me what it is, but if that someone is a being of infinite power and able to create all of existence, at that point I start to take heed of that someone's words.
Slow down buddy. I'm hyperdimensional, I can destroy you. You sure you don't want to take heed?
But seriously, all you're advocating is a might makes right moral system, which is not a moral system in any case. Actual morality - the one concerning conscious well-being - is fairly easy to talk about in terms of facts and logic.
If you're a scientist then yes, I suppose that's true.
But being an atheist doesn't require giving a fuck about objectivity, it simply requires not believing in god. For which there's reason beyond logic.
and what gives anything that is not inherently greater than the universe the ability to define purpose? what makes any one assortment of atoms important enough to define those things, instead of a different arrangement?
> one must transcend duality
> Hot and cold... Good and evil... one selfish and one selfless, expansion and contraction, positive and negative
But given my form of consciousness, I don't see how this is possible - that is, it seems not merely impossible to describe with words, but impossible to be conscious of, to experience. I am a conscious subject, which is to say I am a seer/hearer/feeler/knower/thinker - which is to imply that my consciousness requires an object: some data that is seen/heard/felt/known/thought. My consciousness takes the form subject/object, as reciprocally dependent elements of my unified "I." Thus no matter what I mentally transcend, I cannot get beyond at least this duality of subject/object, because to do so would be to terminate the form of conscioussness itself, and thus to end consciousness. I cannot transcend the duality of subject/object because I *am* this duality.
Even your Absolute doesn't seem to escape duality. If it is
> the pure Ground of reality itself which conditions all dualities
then it requires the correlate concept of a "conditioned." This reciprocal dependence of condition/conditioned is a duality, no? Even to use the concept "ground" implies a consequent, some dependent that is grounded. If your Absolute is an element in a ground/consequent relation, it is bound up in a kind of duality.
> And you can't, that's why it's ineffable. Try to meditating and come back to me.
Okay, maybe I'll agree one day if and when I meditate, hopefully reaching the same state you suggest you have. But I hope you recognize that this claim carries the same weight, as far as I can see, as the claims of those theists you'd denounce, when they assure me that if I only experience the holy spirit, let Jesus into my heart, perform yoga and realize my union with Brahman, have my thetans removed, I'd feel/know the truth of their protestantism/Catholicism/Hinduism/Scientology.
>your first point
It is not consciousness of some other object, but consciousness of consciousness itself. Almost like an ineffable feedback loop. Eliminate what is contingent in your mind, all superfluous mental content, and there is only the base consciousness that presupposes that mental content in the first place. This is that unspeakable something. Not awareness of anything, just awareness itself.
>your second point
Literally the only good argument I've heard against this stuff in months of coming here. you get a fucking medal dude, no memeing. I will have to think on this duality of conditioned/unconditioned you point out. I have an answer but I want to articulate it in such a way that it doesn't sound like I'm moving the goalposts
>your third point
I'm really not saying "get into an ecstatic trance and get back to me bro", I just mean meditate for 10 minutes and see if you can experience what it's like to have a perfectly clear and silent mind, even for a few seconds. That's the ground of everything you are and it is inexpressible. It just is. That's it. I'm not an experienced meditator but I can't imagine how incredible and transformative to enter into this state even deeper and deeper
Well, my thinking on this is much more heavily influenced by Kant than by Hegel, but given the subject/object form of consciousness, I'm not sure it's possible for me to have such a
> consciousness of consciousness itself
because this seems to just treat the form subject/object AS an object, which raises the question of what subject is conscious of this deeper object, and seems to risk an infinite regress as we keep asking that question at deeper and deeper levels of transcendentality. Instead, it seems like we can at most infer that our experience must have some ground, but we cannot have knowledge/experience/feeling of what this ground is.
> Almost like an ineffable feedback loop.
Though I recognize the intrinsic limits of similies, a feedback loop requires two elements in reciprocity - another duality. At least that's what playing amplified guitars leads me to believe.
> Eliminate what is contingent in your mind, all superfluous mental content, and there is only the base consciousness
And we seem to agree that through philosophy, we can conclude that this base consciousness plays an indespensible role in our experience of the world's contents. But this is not the same as concluding that without such content, such data, we can be conscious; rather, without data, the objective element of the fom of consciousness - the place taken by the oject in the subject/object duality - is empty, and where there is no object, there is no consciousness; consciousness is inherently *of* some data. Like we can be conscious that a tremendous crater in the desert presupposes some unseen past event that caused it - even though we can't be directly conscious of this past thing, whether an asteroid or a bomb or an excavator - we can infer from our ongoing experience that there is some ground that accounts for it, even though we can't directly experience what that ground is; conscious experience
> presupposes that mental content in the first place
and without such content actively filling the place of the object, the object place of the subject/object form is empty, which is insufficient for active consciousness.
> This is that unspeakable something. Not awareness of anything, just awareness itself.
tl;dr of the previous post: awareness, consciousness, is inherently of something, of some object. But maybe the more I read, the more I'll change my beliefs.
> no memeing.
That's a very kind compliment, thank you. Kant and Schopenhauer, and what I've read about other German idealists, led me to that argument - but I wouldn't be surprised if reading more primary sources alters my view. Schelling especially seems like an important player regarding that specific issue.
Well anon'd, dude/tte!
>being this vague about your argument that you dont bother to argument worldviews but rather if your worldview has something called a "god" or not
Go over what I just said again.
God beliefs inherently imply worldviews and basic problems with your standard of evidence. Your point was that it's more important to argue worldviews, but a god-belief entails a worldview more often than not, and influences all others. You don't think arguing the validity is god-beliefs is valid because you have no evidence for them and want people to go away.
>God beliefs inherently imply worldviews and basic problems with your standard of evidence. Your point was that it's more important to argue worldviews, but a god-belief entails a worldview more often than not, and influences all others.
>You don't think arguing the validity is god-beliefs is valid because you have no evidence for them and want people to go away.
Completely random bullshit.
I'm talking about people arguing about atheism/theism itself without discussing the complexity of the argument such as what means by their god and how their worldview works with or without that thing they call god.
All you usually get is shallow atheism/theism talk with no talk of the worldviews they're a part of. I'm bothered by the lack of precision in usual arguments on the matter, hence my point, which was largely a response to the first part of the thread. I'm not saying any beliefs are justified or unjustified in this thread, nor that any beliefs are irrelevant to discussion over validity.
>All you usually get is shallow atheism/theism talk with no talk of the worldviews they're a part of.
Not that guy, but that's actually pretty reasonable. Someone who based their atheism in Feuerbach is going to be very different from someone who based their atheism in Stirner.
>I'm talking about people arguing about atheism/theism itself without discussing the complexity of the argument such as what means by their god and how their worldview works with or without that thing they call god.
What some tripfag on 4chains means when they say god is quite frankly irrelevant to me. There are about as many gods as there are people in the world, and if you want to get your "worldview" be heard as something other than indoctrination or pure wishful thinking, first put up some evidence for your imaginary friend. I'm not going to waste time debating god-beliefs from a moral or philosophical standpoint when they show every sign of being unjustified on an evidence basis.
>What some tripfag on 4chains means when they say god is quite frankly irrelevant to me.
Alright, then don't bother discussing it. It makes no sense to get into a conversation without attempting to understand the terms and basis for people's arguments.
>There are about as many gods as there are people in the world
Why yes, but many different types of things are called "gods" so without understanding what exactly we're talking about ontologically when we say "I believe in a god" or "I don't believe in gods" we are liable to very easily misunderstand people completely and not really grasp what is being discussed in arguments. Hence my point >>567362 and >>567322
>first put up some evidence for your imaginary friend.
Most definitely, if you have an argument for a worldview or assert some sort of worldview (explicitly or implicitly) it's best you have a reason for why that is.
>I'm not going to waste time debating god-beliefs from a moral or philosophical standpoint when they show every sign of being unjustified on an evidence basis.
Then don't engage in the conversation. If you deliberately do not wish to understand peoples views when arguing about the validity of their views then you're just wasting your time and providing nothing fruitful to yourself or others.
Why aren't you an ignostic, agnostic, atheist naturalistic pantheist yet?
>Alright, then don't bother discussing it. It makes no sense to get into a conversation without attempting to understand the terms and basis for people's arguments.
I don't make effort to understand the terms, I understand the basis pretty well. If you're arguing anything from the point of view of revelation and commandment, you better be able to show that these happened in the first place, or EVERYTHING you say is based on a false premise and thus easily dismissed.
>Why yes, but many different types of things are called "gods"
Yes, lots of people redefine god to mean something that the word didn't mean historically and doesn't mean in dictionaries. If your god is:
-An object (i.e. the universe)
-An idea (i.e. love)
You're just dishonestly redefining words to rationalize your world view; often, I'd guess, completely contrary to what one actually believes. People who try to pass off arguments that "God is love" also tend to believe a whole lot of other bullshit that the actual god they believe dictated.
>Most definitely, if you have an argument for a worldview or assert some sort of worldview (explicitly or implicitly) it's best you have a reason for why that is.
And I should just watch you not do it for the fourth post in a row?
>Then don't engage in the conversation. If you deliberately do not wish to understand peoples views when arguing about the validity of their views then you're just wasting your time and providing nothing fruitful to yourself or others.
I will engage in conversation whenever I want. Again, the validity of your views regarding god-dictated morality and ideology ARE INHERENTLY BASED ON THE VALIDITY OF THE GOD-CLAIM.
Why would I possibly try to delve into the depths of a christfag's insanity when they can't demonstrate the first thing about their claims is substantiated?
The best way of understanding a Catholic's arguments is to recognise that they define God in the vaguest possible way when they are talking to an atheist or asked to define it by anyone.
They say "God is just To Be" or "God is near yet far" or "God is stange and cannot be understood".
Then as soon as your back is turned it is right back to claiming they are absolutely certain that they know the opinion of "Something strange that no make can understand" on the use of condoms or divorce. Or claiming that "To Be" turned himself into a flying carpenter that really loves turning cheap wafers into his body and cheap red wine into his blood.
It's like dealing with a naughty teenager who got caught with a messy room.
>I don't make effort to understand the terms, I understand the basis pretty well.
You understand the basis for the arguments but not the terms and what they mean in the argument. Then what do you know the basis of?
>Yes, lots of people redefine god to mean something that the word didn't mean historically and doesn't mean in dictionaries. If your god is:
There are TONS of very distinct differences between things called "gods" and how they are to exist. Particularly in the older days. Nowadays in the west there is a trend to think of "gods" in the sense of greek gods or the theistic personalist view of the Abrahamic god that came about from modernity and simply not be aware of older conceptions. Even with Christianity, there are two different conceptions of what "god" is that are popular - theistic personalism and classical theism.
Either way, it is obviously important to grasp what terms mean before discussing them.
>And I should just watch you not do it for the fourth post in a row?
...Do you think I've been arguing for some manner of divinity with you? Re-read everything I've said to you thus far. I'm clearly criticizing the manner of the discussion itself, not trying to put forth any argument within the discussion.
If I misunderstood your post here I apologize and please do correct me if I'm wrong.
>I will engage in conversation whenever I want.
Shit man, calm down. What I said wasn't an order.
>Again, the validity of your views regarding god-dictated morality and ideology ARE INHERENTLY BASED ON THE VALIDITY OF THE GOD-CLAIM.
And, again, I agree with that. EVERY belief needs a backing for it, especially those based on other beliefs within the system.
>Why would I possibly try to...
Well you said you don't make effort to understand the terms so if they're trying to make an argument for a concept how can you know what is valid or invalid claims?
>You understand the basis for the arguments but not the terms and what they mean in the argument. Then what do you know the basis of?
The basis of your beliefs.
>Either way, it is obviously important to grasp what terms mean before discussing them.
It's actually completely unimportant to me. Both of the two different conceptions you pointed out are equally unsubstantiated.
>...Do you think I've been arguing for some manner of divinity with you? Re-read everything I've said to you thus far. I'm clearly criticizing the manner of the discussion itself, not trying to put forth any argument within the discussion.
You're trying to legitimize the argument for divinity by delegitimizing the argument of whether the claims are based in fact in the first place. So yes, in a roundabout way that's characteristic of "educated" christfags, that's what you're doing.
>Well you said you don't make effort to understand the terms so if they're trying to make an argument for a concept how can you know what is valid or invalid claims?
Call it an educated guess. Maybe you're right. Maybe some religious loony actually has good reasons for their indoctrinated-but-totally-logically-deduced views. Let's see some of them. 20 years and going I haven't seen a single good argument, but maybe today's the day. The evasive tripfag manifested himself to prove me wrong.
>The basis of your beliefs.
And if you don't know the terms and what they mean then you don't have the basic knowledge to know what the "beliefs" are.
>It's actually completely unimportant to me. Both of the two different conceptions you pointed out are equally unsubstantiated.
And if you believe that, that's unimportant, but if you want to debate a person it makes sense to know precisely what they are talking about before giving judgement on anything they discuss. This is true of literally any argument for any thing.
>You're trying to legitimize the argument for divinity by delegitimizing the argument of whether the claims are based in fact in the first place. So yes, in a roundabout way that's characteristic of "educated" christfags, that's what you're doing.
But I have constantly argued that there needs to be a backing for their beliefs in the first place:
"EVERY belief needs a backing for it, especially those based on other beliefs within the system."
"Most definitely, if you have an argument for a worldview or assert some sort of worldview (explicitly or implicitly) it's best you have a reason for why that is."
"I'm not saying any beliefs are justified or unjustified in this thread, nor that any beliefs are irrelevant to discussion over validity."
You're very, very wrong about what I'm doing and somehow miss it after me already telling you this very point three different times in back to back posts.
>Call it an educated guess.
Don't try to make this into something it's not. I'm not saying religious or irreligious people HAVE good OR bad arguments. I'm making comments about the discussion itself and how to go about understanding each other in discussions. You need to stop being so hungry after theist blood to at least realize when an argument is not an argument for divinity.
And don't just guess what people are arguing FOR when they make arguments. Be precise so you can have precise criticism.
>And if you don't know the terms and what they mean then you don't have the basic knowledge to know what the "beliefs" are.
I have no use of learning all the different definitions of a god. You can introduce any single one to me and without evidence it's still unsubstantiated.
>And if you believe that, that's unimportant, but if you want to debate a person it makes sense to know precisely what they are talking about before giving judgement on anything they discuss. This is true of literally any argument for any thing.
You're acting like the word "god" doesn't have implications. Again, if you want to tell me I'm wrong by saying that people don't have evidence for their gods - as long as it doesn't involve a complete redefinition of the word, as pointed out earlier - you're free to provide it. One piece of evidence for any particular claim is all it takes.
>You're very, very wrong about what I'm doing and somehow miss it after me already telling you this very point three different times in back to back posts.
You can pretend I'm wrong about what you're doing all you want. You have a horse in this race, and because you're delusional enough to be a christfag, I'm not going to let you pretend you don't.
>Don't try to make this into something it's not. I'm not saying religious or irreligious people HAVE good OR bad arguments. I'm making comments about the discussion itself and how to go about understanding each other in discussions. You need to stop being so hungry after theist blood to at least realize when an argument is not an argument for divinity.
The discussion is completely irrelevant when it's being had on false premises. If one of your premises is divine revelation or commandment, unless it is substantiated, the discussion is completely and utterly irrelevant. Moot. Meaningless. Get it through your thick skull.
Holy fuck anon this is getting really fucking stupid.
>I have no use of learning all the different definitions of a god. You can introduce any single one to me and without evidence it's still unsubstantiated.
This isn't about knowing all about a topic, but knowing the argument being discussed. Actually fucking read and stop with your "educated guesses" and read what I am ACTUALLY TELLING YOU because I do not wish to repeat myself again.
>You're acting like the word "god" doesn't have implications. Again, if you want to tell me I'm wrong by saying that people don't have evidence for their gods - as long as it doesn't involve a complete redefinition of the word, as pointed out earlier - you're free to provide it. One piece of evidence for any particular claim is all it takes.
And if they got it that's fucking fine, stop trying to make this into the argument you so desperately want. I already AGREED with you that the idea of God has implications and ALREADY told multiple times that beliefs need backing to be asserted as truth. I am not trying to convince you on theism or of atheism, I am trying to have a meta discussion on the form in which to properly discuss the topic of theism and atheism with clarity.
>You can pretend I'm wrong about what you're doing all you want. You have a horse in this race, and because you're delusional enough to be a christfag, I'm not going to let you pretend you don't.
Of course I have a view. Everyone has views and needs to be able to defend them. Stop begging for an atheism/theism argument. Fuck off.
>The discussion is completely irrelevant when it's being had on false premises. If one of your premises is divine revelation or commandment, unless it is substantiated, the discussion is completely and utterly irrelevant. Moot. Meaningless. Get it through your thick skull.
IF THERE IS A BELIEF, IT NEED BE JUSTIFIED. THIS IS THE FIFTH TIME I HAVE TOLD YOU THIS.
I'll give you the last word.
>This isn't about knowing all about a topic, but knowing the argument being discussed. Actually fucking read and stop with your "educated guesses" and read what I am ACTUALLY TELLING YOU because I do not wish to repeat myself again.
There is no argument, you moronic fucking shitstain. That's what I've been telling you. "God dun told me this" isn't an argument.
>I am trying to have a meta discussion on the form in which to properly discuss the topic of theism and atheism with clarity.
The point of your meta discussion is to loosen the burden of proof you have. It's not going to happen.
>Of course I have a view. Everyone has views and needs to be able to defend them. Stop begging for an atheism/theism argument. Fuck off.
Begging? Mate, you came into an atheist/theist argument and called it illegitimate because you think theistic arguments need to be debated regardless of the evidentiary underpinnings they have. You fuck off.
>IF THERE IS A BELIEF, IT NEED BE JUSTIFIED. THIS IS THE FIFTH TIME I HAVE TOLD YOU THIS.
Good thing you say you agree. Time to start acting like it, buddy-o.
>I'll give you the last word.
Leaving for church?
>if you're an atheist, logically you must be a nihilist.
But if I'm a nihilist, how do I place any value in logical consistency? Can't I be what a non-nihilist would describe as a massive hypocrite and/or completely irrational person and just not give any fucks?
> Even with Christianity, there are two different conceptions of what "god" is that are popular - theistic personalism and classical theism.
You been reading Brian Davies?
The orthodox don't have a problem with it. And I've read some jewish thought that's very similar to it. Muslims don't seem to like anything that takes away from God's oneness and separateness, so to speak. I'll admit I haven't read any deep muslim theology though since it's all in arabic.
interesting idea, at least. reminds me of something I discovered recently related to evolution: The main story people want us to believe is that 4-6 million years ago, humans didn't exist, and that we had a common ancestor with a chimpanzee. They say that this "wan't a chimp" but that it also "wasn't a human." So that means it would have to have features of both. The problem is, chimpanzees don't have features of both, and humans don't have features of both. If humans and chimps don't have features of both, then how could the common ancestor have features of both? That means either humans evoluved from chimps, or chimps evolved from humans. Obviously since humans are more advanced than chimps, the humans must have "evolved" from chimps. However, if chimps evolted into humans, then how are there still chimps? According to evolution, birds evolved from dinosaurs, therefore there are no dinosaurs left. If humans evolved from chimps, then IT MAKES NOT SENSE FOR THERE TO BE ANY CHIMPS
Depends on which Abrahamic faiths we're talking about, but the gist is that Abrahamic theology has a built in duality wherein deity is not recognizable as any created thing (hence they reject idolatry, the use of created objects to represent and serve as deity). One True God that is Lord above All, etc. If we allow pantheisms (including panentheism) then this duality becomes blurred or even fades away, but, more importantly, it allows for orthodox positions of priesthood and their monopoly on authority to diminish, which priesthoods are naturally opposed to. Notice that pantheisms are accused of being "materialist" by orthodox thinkers, and as such are inherently atheistic. They're actually correct, but miss the point.
In fact, panentheism is the only way to reconcile Abrahamic religion's claims of deity with reality. If God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, if there is no God but God, if God is the origin and creation of all things, including existence itself, then there simply can not be anything except for God: everything must exist within God, or else we live in a reality where their is God and there is Not-God, which is dualistic and naturally opposed to monotheism. Unless your comfortable with a very unquestioning acceptance of tribal henotheism, as found in the Hebrew bible, but why should anyone be satisfied with this? And here we see the problem regarding the priesthood: if we follow the Abrahamic idea of God to its conclusion of panentheism, is necessarily negates much of established canon and the ideas within it. This is moreso a problem with Judaism and Christianity than Islam, which openly claims the other texts (though valid for their groups and still acceptable to God) are corrupted to some degree, and which rejects the institution of priesthood. That said the Muslim orthodoxies have had their problems with panentheism precisely because they have developed defacto priesthoods (though even to this day a much softer brand).
This has to beg the question, why do so many scientists believe in evolution? Even though many scientists do NOT believe in it, there is still a significant percent that does. If you think about it, the darwinists have the same evidence as us, but we can come to different conclusions because we don't have the bias of darwinism. Darwinism is the biased assumption that Richard Darwin had all the correct ideas about life science, based on the fact that he was a leading scientist of the time (the 19th century). Actually, Darwin wasn't even a real scientist, he just drew pictures and made stuff up on a boat, but the darwinists don't want to hear that. The bias of darwinism makes many people deluded into thinking that the evidence always points in favor of THEIR view, even though to an unbiased person that would not be the case. But the delusional/biased people aren't the only ones that make up believers in evolution. Since evolutionists have a monopoly on the media and on education, they are able to brainwash (for lack of a better word) aspiring students. That is how some people can continue to be deluded. However, science teachers also dismiss any evidence against evolution a priori, and even refuse to discuss it at all. Many students end up thinking that the only evidence out there is evidence IN FAVOR of evolution, and they're just ignorant of the facts that go against the mainstream theory.
what I want to know is why is mainstream science so opposed to questioning perspectives like this? There are a lot of people who are questioning the evidence in favor of common descent with modification, but we all know that teachers and scientists aren't interested in discussing the facts, they're interested in advancing their own agenda. The problem is, many students aren't satisfied with just being told "this is correct, you just have to accept it and ignore the holes in it." I don't want a theory full of "holes," I want one full of "wholes." If evolution can't explain why chimpanzees and humans can be extant together, even when they're supposed to be genetically related by a common ancestor, and that's the cornerstone of the theory, then why should we be expected to believe it? It's a sad symptom of the state of science when there are tens of thousands of "darwinism apologists" in our classrooms, and there are only a handful of dissenters (some of whom get blacklisted or imprisoned for questioning the consensus).
>make a thread about the philosophical god for once to add a little nuance to the buzzfeed-tier religion threads on this board
>shitposters calling thousand year old ideas new age, arguing about evolution, thinking believing in the Absolute is an absolutist statement (top kek at this one), etc.
Only a handful posters itt know their shit and are posting good shit, evening you don't agree with the op like that one guy
You might think "well, just because chimpanzees and humans had to have had a common ancestor that shared features of both humans and chimpanzees, that doesn't mean that its descendants would have to have those shared features," but that really doesn't make any sense. If I said, the ancestor had feature A, then both chimpanzees and humans would have to have feature A, because otherwise it wouldn't be a "shared feature." So say you had a common ancestor with features A, B, C, and D. If the chimp has A, B, C', and D', but the human has A', B', C, and D, then none of those features are "shared." Therefore, there's no evidence that the supposed common ancestor is related to either humons or chimps. If you wanted to demonstrate shared common descent, you would have to have something like birds, which all have wings (W), all have beaks (B), and who all have feathers (F). Dinosaurs had no wings (W'), teeth (B'), and some of them had feathers (F). Therefore, when you compare birds and dinosaurs, you can see that dinosaurs' features were MODIFIED, because all birds share certain features. If they didn't share certain features, like humans and chimps don't, then you would't have any reason to say birds and dinosaurs are related.
>not a chimp
There's only one explanation
>I WANT TO BELIEVE
The depth of you r arguments deserve a bit more than just this but here you go: all I can say is that we have reality, where these dualistic categories still apply, and wha is behind reality, which is beyond any category cognisable in reality itself. What I'm saying is, by its very nature (even to talk of its nature is kind of sacrilgeious), the Absolute is just what can't be understood by any rational argument. It can only be insinuated in our experience by the right system of spiritual discipline and cultivation.
Also you are wrong to assume we are just replacing the object in the subject/object dichotomy with just blank space, as if the goal is me, a particular anon with a particular history, to look on the Absolute and say I did it. It's to break down all divisions between the me that is looking and what is being looked at in the first place. Like a divine flow state. And the point neither is to dissolve into this nothingness, but to embody it in the particular, condtingent universe right now because this primordial I AM is ourselves, and we are this I AM. As Hegel says, the Absolute negates itself to become what is not-absolute, Becoming itself, so that we might then be put to the test of realizing this perfection again in a universe that is totally hostile the eternal ideal. In essence, the mystic, the ascetic, is the negation of Becoming, but not to dissolve back into emptiness, but to create a synthesis of Becoming and Being, what is more perfect than both. By self-actualizing ourselves we self-actualize the infinite in the process, bit by bit. But that's just what I believe. The beauty and elegance of this process is extremely appealing to me on philosophical, aesthetic and spiritual levels, but who really knows. I'm not here to preach. Even if it's all bullshit improving yourself body and mind never hurts
Evolution predicts that humans and spiders can have a common ancestor that shares both the features of a spider and a human. However, that common acnestor would also have to have the features of all the other mammals, because the spider-human ancestor would also be the acnestor of all mammals. That gets to be pretty complex.
if you think about it, the common ancestor between humans and spiders actually isn't physically possible. Just think about the number of legs it would have had. Spiders have eight legs, humans have two, so you might think the common ancestor should have had 5 legs. However, the human-spider ancestor would have t o have had the features of the common ancestor of MAMMALs, not just humans. Since humans have 2, and other mammals have 4, then the number for the mammal ancestor would be 3. The spider-human ancestor would be (8+3)/2, which is 5.5. The human-spider ancestor would have to have had 5.5 legs, which is not a possible number of legs. If you have half a leg, it's not really a leg. You can have 5 legs, you can have 6 legs, but you can't have 5.5 legs. I think this means humans and spider would not have had a common ancestor, so they are from separate lineages in a family tree. Spiders might be the brother-in-law, and humans would be the brothers
On the other hand, spiders have eight eyes. Humans have 2 eyes, and so do mammals. That means the spider-human acnestor will have had 5 eyes, just like you would expect. If spiders had 7 eyes, it would not work. However, this seems to actually be evidence in FAVOR of a common acnestor between spiders and humans/all mamals. There is another test for common ancestry, which is to look at the dna. If two species are descended from a common ancestor, then you would expect to see the same sequences of dna in both species. However, the spider genome has not been found to be identical to human dna in that respect, which is a result AGAINST relationship. The same is true for chimpanzees. If you look at chimpanzee dna, it may be similar in some places, but that's because it needs to do similar things (regulate bloodflow, make white blood cells, etc). In fact, humans have not been found, contrary to evolutionary prediciton, to have the same dna as ANY species whose dna has been thoroughly investigated.
S/he doesn't believe that, but thinks evolutionary theory implies it, because s/he has a very confused notion of how evolution works.
Isn't God considered to be both panenetheistic and immaterial?
Material reality is imperfect yet also can display or reach towards perfection which shows that there is some godliness in it.
Dude, seriously, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, what is referred by those terms, the differences between them, and the philosophical history behind them. Just stop
>Being 2deep4u and intentionally vague as fuck.
This thread is filled with pseudo-intellectual nonsense. Calling it philosophy is a glaring insult to actual philosophy as opposed to esoteric dribble.
>Evola and Plato weren't the pinnacle of esoteric dribble.
Just because something is published does not make it worth anything, my friend. Additionally indiscriminately name-dropping philosophers doesn't make your argument worth anything either.
Neither does calling something pseudo-intellectual and 2deep4u constitute an argument. I've argued my points, I've explained what it is, go read the posts if you're interested and tear them apart if you're so smart, otherwise it really isn't my problem you think something is drivel because you can't grasp it
I can grasp it, what I'm telling you is you've said absolutely nothing new or insightful.
It's simply pretending this brand of theism is not really theism because "You don't get it, man".
It is, you just don't understand theism well enough to recognize it's exactly what you're talking about. You think it's something deeper than theism, which is why I say you're being 2deep4u.
No, you really have no idea what you're talking about. Theism posits a creator God who has a personal relationship with his creation. This is not that. Once again, you have no idea what you are talking about
It doesn't, it simply requires a belief in at least one deity. Even deism, which assumes a supreme exists but has no relationship with the universe is a subset of theism.
I'll give you a nifty hint, if it isn't atheism it is theism. Trying to escape this dichotomy invariably comes with attaching imagined meanings onto atheism or theism, which is exactly what you're doing with this /x/ tier malarky.
I have not been describing a being but the ground state of being. The Absolute is not a deity any more than Nirvana is. Stop trying to compartmentalize the world into your shitty meme dichotomies. If you don't get it, that's fine, but don't give me this trash and calling thousand year old ideas /x/ tier because you have no familiarity with them and think mysticism is icky. Quote passages, make an argument, elaborate on your reasoning, or take the red eye back to reddit pronto
Deity doesn't inherently mean a distinct being, it can simply mean a supernatural nature to something - in this case being itself.
>calling thousand year old ideas /x/ tier
The fact that they're old doesn't immunize them from being /x/ tier nonsense anymore than somehow in 1000 years Wicca will stop being /x/ tier nonsense.
So your argument is this shit is shit because it's not hard physicalism, therefore it's theism, therefore it's trash? Please
And the fact you can't grasp the essential difference here doesn't magically validate your argument
No, my argument is that this is theism, therefore why are you acting like it isn't?
You see to think your idea is somehow so much deeper, so much more meaningful, than common theism or atheism.
>And the fact you can't grasp the essential difference here doesn't magically validate your argument
My friend, what's happening here is you understand both atheism and theism so poorly you're imagining distinctions where there are none. Atheism doesn't mean hard physicalism, theism doesn't mean magic sky-daddies, I advise you educate yourself - finishing high school would be a start.
Kek, the guy who can't grok Plato and Evola is telling me to go back to school. You have no conception of anything being discussed in this thread. I literally quoted the actual definition of theism at you and you moved the goal posts just deity, then supernatural nature. So I guess that makes Hinduism and Buddhism and Taoism theism then lmao
You've been arguing semantics this whole time. I'm done babysitting your autism on a Sunday, see ya
>Taoism isn't theism
>HINDUISM isn't theism
At first I thought the problem was you were underage, but now it's clear you are in fact severely mentally handicapped. The fact that you think so highly of Plato should have tipped me off.
>. I literally quoted the actual definition of theism at you and you moved the goal posts just deity, then supernatural nature
Except I didn't move the goal-posts, you just don't understand the meanings of words. Most glaringly in that you think deity implies an anthropomorphic being.
Hahaha the Tao is a deity you dumb shit?
Actually it's you who don't understand Hinduism. Hindu gods are widely acknowledged as facets of the One/Brahman, and it's only the plebs that need to anthropomorphize and worship them. They're just names given to forces with a common origin. Why do you think you never hear great Indian sages talking about Shiva and Ganesha, instead referring to the cosmic principles they represent?
Once again, you have no fucking clue what you're talking about
As I say, you don't understand that deity can refer to things beside anthropomorphic beings. It can also mean a supernatural nature.
> and it's only the plebs that need to anthropomorphize and worship them
This is exactly what I'm talking about. You seem to think that theism means anthropomorphic sky fairies when in reality Hinduism is diverse as fuck for one thing, so there are in fact millions of Hindus who do believe in the gods as literal anthropomorphic beings. And as an even broader sense the Brahman as a universal reality is the pinnacle of pantheism.
You're as learned as you think you are, friend. Despite having heard a George Harrison album once.
Theism does not mean anything and everything supernatural you dumb fuck. You don't know what words mean. There is such a thing as non nontheistic christianity (Merton, Tillich), Hinduism is not theistic, you concede Buddhism isn't, and you think Taoism is theistic? Fucking lol, the Tao is absolutely not a deity in a any sense meant by theisn, and the theism unequivocally means belief in deities. That's it. You lost.
You're trying to expand the definition of theism to include my views, and then trying to tell me my views are just regular old theism? Come on
It doesn't, but it does include what you're talking about. For instance believing in ghosts or some shit isn't theism. However believing there's a supernatural force that permeates the universe beyond human understand is theistic as fuck.
I haven't expanded the definition of anything, you just walked into an argument without realizing how broad theism really is. See for yourself
Additionally I didn't concede Buddhism isn't theistic, however I will concede sometimes it isn't. Usually by westerners who just take the teachings as good advice rather than supernatural truth.
> and then trying to tell me my views are just regular old theism?
There is no "regular old" theism. This is just you thinking your beliefs are special and deeper than theism.
This is like saying Sprite isn't really soda because it's not coke.
>the universe is permeated by some supernatural force
You think I'm talking some corny Star Wars shit, instead of the ultimate source and essence of reality? Nice brosef, now what was that I told you about not getting it?
Once again, you're being 2deep4u and will only debate using your own terms with totally made up definitions to distinguish your beliefs from identical beliefs on a totally arbitrary basis.
Somehow "supernatural force" is clearly nonsense. But "essence of reality" that just so happens to be supernatural is perfectly rational.
> believing there's a supernatural force that permeates the universe beyond human understand is theistic as fuck.
Slow down there.
Who said the essence of reality is supernatural? It's what makes nature in the first place. These aren't made up woo woo definitions you retard
>Hindu scriptures describe ultimate reality as Brahman. Brahman is non-dusk pure consciousness, indivisible, incorporeal, infinite, and all-pervading like the sky. Brahman is of the nature of existence-knowledge-bliss-absolute- the ground of all existence, basis of all awareness, and source of all bliss. It is the real of all realities, the soul of all souls, one without a second, the constant witness of the changing phenomena of the universe. From the absolute point of view, Brahman alone exists.
>Again, various seekers of God, depending upon their advancement, perceive God differently. For example, to the beginner God appears as an extra-cosmic creator, to the more advanced seeker as an inner controller, and to the perfect lover of God, God is everywhere and everything.
>A few liberal Christian theologians define a "nontheistic God" as "the ground if all being" rather than as a personal divine being. John Shelby Spong refers to a theistic God as a "personal being with expanded, supernatural, human and parental qualities, which has shaped every religious idea of the Western world"
>Paul Tillich: "God does not exist. He is being itself beyond essence and existence. Therefore to argue that God exists is to deny him."
It's true theism is usually the springpad into this kind of consciousness, but sperging about it like you are is like arguing I'm still a child because I was a child once and both children and adults are humans. You're clueless
> It's what makes nature in the first place
By basic logic if something makes nature it is beyond nature. This is why god is supernatural and why your absolute is supernatural by the same principle.
>It's true theism is usually the springpad into this kind of consciousness,
As I said earlier something is either atheism or theism. Being amby pamby about it and acting like theism is a dirty word isn't getting you anywhere.
They didn't, you're just reading into it things that aren't there. With the exception of this nonsense.
>John Shelby Spong refers to a theistic God as a "personal being with expanded, supernatural, human and parental qualities, which has shaped every religious idea of the Western world"
Which is totally contrary to what theism actually means. And is much closer to what you think it means.
Was my response "nuh-uh", no, pointing out the fault in your logic isn't "nuh-uh".
They didn't, they described a concept of god that you assume to be non-theistic. When in fact it is fully in line with theism in one way or another.
>>his definition isn't my definition so it's wrong
His definition is just plain wrong, there's no subjectivity about it.
The definition of theism is as follows
>the belief that God exists or that many gods exist
This does not require got to be anthropomorphic or a parent-like figure as he was trying to say. It simply requires some form of god.
Now you're going into autism overload. The Tao, the absolute, the One, is not a deity. it, technically, is divine but at its level there are no categories of sacred/profane, divine/mundane etc. Yes,I believe in a transcendent principle. No it is not a deity and therefore theistic. I've demonstrated the difference to you already, now you're just quibbling semantics
Okay, be totally contrary to the reality of the English language because it hurts your feelings.
It is a deity, I've already demonstrated to you exactly why it is a deity, if you don't like the fact that words have meanings then perhaps a language composed of primal grunts and snarls is better suited to your sensibilities.
>the English language conditions the absolute
Nice one. Four words that clearly say being described as deity means being godlike that your terminal autism has contorted into believing the infinite is literally a god
It is not a deity. it contains deities, yes, but it is beyond deities, beyond being anything. The One is not theism, any more than Plotinus' metaphyics are theistic. If you don't want to use the commonly accepted definitions of words be my guest but take your meds next time you feel a 'tism attack coming on
Bruh how many times do I have to say it's the absolute not because it has the biggest dick in the universe but because it is beyond all categories by its very nature?
>Fits within the definition of theism.
>Fits within the definition of deity
I don't know what there is to debate anymore, or even why you're so autistically against admitting that this is theism.
>. If you don't want to use the commonly accepted definitions of words
m8, you can't just take your definitions and declare them to be commonly accepted. Especially when the leading scholars of the English language disagree.
Actually yes. You see there's thing that's been around for quite some time now called a dictionary that was invented precisely to resolve these kinds of arguments.
As we've already noticed the dictionary seems to think I'm right.
as krishna said to arjuna
"all these things are in me, but i am not them"
the absolute contains category in its boundlessness; that is: it is not limited to category. it transcends category, having it spring out of itself like a ray of light from the sun.
the absolute is the point of origin for everythingness and nothingness. it is beyond the very dichotomy of existence and non-existence. it is beyond paradox but paradox is found in it.
This is our point of reference. Essentially, it is non-duality. It is self-existent. It has no opposite. It is not part of a polarity. Sovereign. Polarity is in everything, down to the atomic level. And it is the interplay of opposites, positive and negative being the first, that make the world. The Absolute is that which has no opposite. The Absolute is that which is positive and negative *at the same time*. It is transcendent in its integral unity.
Paradoxical? It is. There comes a point where intellection only goes so far. That is why wise men of every race, every era, regardless of denomination, that prepare their consciousness with the intent of reaching this dimension that is the cause of their very being say it is something to be experienced. Which is exactly why most people tune out when discussing this. Seeking out the way is a transformation unto the self.
Eh fuck off dude I'm tired of striking your autism. The Absolute isn't theistic, enjoy story.
Pretty much this family. It is the reconcilement of all polarities, the synthesis of all contradictions. What conditions the interplay of dualistic forces. Positive determine negative by its very nature, negative determines positive for t same reason, what determines them both? Bingo
I think we've about reached the point where we've said all we can say in defense of our own views; there might be impassible differences in what we can each currently accept about consciousness, though without disrespecting the other's beliefs.
Mere repetition is probably all that would follow, as much of this thread has turned into a frustrating example of.
I'm sympathetic with the view that some truths must be experienced firsthand, and can't be communicated; all the words in the world won't give a blind person the visual perception of a flower. Similarly, meditation might yield the experience of the Absolute which description or rational argumentation can at best point toward without adequately providing. Though this might be what you believe about the Absolute, what I've read about Hegel leads me to think he'd disagree that
> the Absolute is just what can't be understood by any rational argument
and would rather insist that, after many human ages of artistic and religious representations of the Absolute, our own age can attain philosophical knowledge of the Absolute via our rational recognition of the universe's natural/conceptual progress.
Maybe I'm wrong about Hegel; maybe everybody's wrong about Hegel; maybe I'm right about Hegel, and you just don't agree with Hegel on this point.
And while I appreciate the praxis-oriented view of union with the Absolute - with the resultant striving for the realization of perfection in the ethical substance of our society, as Hegel might emphasize, or for spiritual perfection in our individual selves, as you might emphasize - I don't see how such a mystical union is attainable. I'm skeptical that there could be consciousness at all - experience at all, transcendent or otherwise - with the abolition of the
> divisions between the me that is looking and what is being looked at in the first place
but we've each said our piece on that issue.
So thanks again!
I won't drag you into another debate but you are right about Hegel believing the absolute will be cognisable at some point. And maybe you are right there will always be done residual I no matter how ecstatic and blissful the state. that's definitely what some people have argued, that all this stuff eventually just leads to an unconscious state. Maybe, maybe not
Anyways thanks for being a reasonable, non-autistic anon with good points. Peace
>the alpha and omega
>who was and who is to come
>the beginning and the ending
i'm sorry what were you saying?
>Theism posits a creator God who has a personal relationship with his creation.
God is not material nor is he a creature or even a part of the universe. You are operating on very superficial and also misinformed assumptions.
To posit a creator God is not the same as positing that this creator is itself a creature; positing that it created matter is not to posit that it is itself material; positing that it created the universe is not to posit that it is part of the universe. How did you infer any of that from the post you quoted?
Not that I think the concept (if it's even conceivable) of an immaterial, supernatural intelligence that can will beings into existence from nothingness is unproblematic; maybe, in order to maintain compatibility between the effects and their posited cause, the cause must be of the same material/finite nature (otherwise something like the interaction problem of substance dualism results), and thus such theists can't logically conclude that God is immaterial etc. But, incoherently or not, they as a matter of fact do conclude this.
what a creative addressation of the mere fact of the matter. in fact, new kinds of species do not define all the new species about which they have developed into. exemplificationally, take the case in point of the crabs. As this humble fellow distinguishedly pointed out, crabs are descended from a number of species "related" to the crab ancestral line of descendancy. However, NB that there is not a mention in the slightest of a purificational mother ancestor which is encompassing, theoretically, all frogs and say, ants, or other insects. In order to deduce the fallacy of such a claim, it is necessary to perform some mathematical operations which are actually capable of disproving the "truth" of evolution. (leg calculations aside, which actually lead to infinity as the number of predicted legs for the common ancestor of all life creatures) consider the statistical likelihood that such a creature would have existed. assign a probability x of a certain set of features U existing in a species at one point in evolutionary history. If we have another set of features V which is assigned to another extant species, it will have a probability of y. In order to determine the probability of the most recent common ancestor of these two species (polytomies aside), take the probability z of the union of U and V. so z=x*y. you can see that the probability of a common ancestor for all species will be the product of all probabilities of all extant and extinct species, hypothetical or otherwise. Therefore, for this reason, it is highly untenable to assert with a certain degree of likelihood the statement that the descendants of a species will always be defined by that species.
according to the logical absolute of the excluded middle, it is a bipolar question, it either is or it isnt.
theism and atheism is a response to a logical proposition.
"p" or theism, believes the proposition.
"-p" or atheism rejects the proposition.
the proposition being the belief in a god
> Contradictory propositions cannot both be false, unless the concept lying at the ground of both of them is self-contradictory; for example, the propositions, "A square circle is round," and "A square circle is not round" are both false.
Prolegomena, section 52b
Nah. Theism has long swallowed up the "absolute"- see the Scholastics. God is "ipsum esse subsistens"- subsistent Being Itself. The despair inherent in the gulf between the utter remoteness of the Absolute and the finite nature of man has already been cured by his self-revelation and incarnation in Christ. Sorry, bub, Christianity is more dialectically advanced.
the one-all is a tricky thing
it cant be defined or concieved of in specifics, only way we know its not some god is because even a god is a subsystem, whatever we call it or however we think of it just makes us sound stupid, absolute, transcendent, chaos... in so far as whatsoever in particular exists 'it' is not, in so far as 'it' is, no thing in particular exists
You might be right - or Hegel might be right that both atheism and theism employ concepts that fall short of the Absolute, and upon investigation both reveal their inadequacies and implicit contradictions, spawning new, more adequate concepts that still retain vestiges of contradictoriness, and on and on until the concept of Absolute Spirit is realized in philosophical consciousness.
I'm very, very open to the idea that Hegel is wrong - in fact, I'd tend to agree that for a given concept of god G, a person either does or does not believe in G. My goal is only to point out a different and historically influential (though not for that reason true, of course) approach to investigating the dichotomy, and to suggest that more we need to give a more substantive criticism of the Hegelian view before we reject it.
Your whole spiel can be undermined by simply asking "why?" and that doesn't bother you in the least?
If the final reality is unintelligible to us then aren't you living irrationally inherently and in contention with yourself and the final reality simply by existing the way you do?
He isn't wrong.
Most Atheists are staunch materialists, materialists necessarily must end at nihilism.
Materialism isn't a big leap for atheists to make.
You're not quite there. The untruth of each of those (non-)equations is due to the fact that the numbers on the left of the "equals" sign don't actually add up to the sum presented on the right of the " equals" sign; but taken on its own, neither the numbers on the left of it nor the numbers on the right are inconsistent. The logical analogue of this mathematical untruth would be, for example, "All whales are California," where there is no inconsistency in the subject concept(s) taken alone (to the left of the copula, which in this case is "are"), and there is no inconsistency in the predicate concept (to the right of "are") taken alone, but instead the untruth arises from this mode of joining them together.
Kant's talking about propositions that are untrue in a different way - where one half, taken on its own, is inconsistent. He gives the example of a proposition where the subject, "square circle," is self-contradictory, and thus no matter what predicate concept we join with this to form a proposition, that proposition will be untrue, inheriting the necessary untruth of its subject concept(s). (This wasn't the case with the above example of the subject concept "whales," which can be joined with many predicate concepts - like "mammals," "vertebrates," "organisms" - without yielding untruth.) So if you wanted a mathematical analogue of the logical principle Kant is maintaining, an example might be "5/0 + 1 = x," since the untruth doesn't result from the (non-)equation taken in its entirety, but results from the fact that a part of the equation (five divided by zero) is inconsistent even when taken on its own.
> what gives anything that is not inherently greater than the universe the ability to define purpose?
Purpose doesn't have to be at a cosmic scale in order to be worth living for; even if the universe as a whole doesn't have an intrinsic purpose, that doesn't mean we humans can't live with purpose. We are conscious, rational, emotional animals, and we can direct our lives towards those goals that we find satisfying and, I'd insist, those goals that are moral. This isn't some cosmic/eternal purpose that many theisms (and atheisms) have claimed exists, but that doesn't make it illusory, nor should our expectations be so skewed by ancient promises of providence and immortality.
> what makes any one assortment of atoms important enough to define those things, instead of a different arrangement?
Assuming a materialist ontology (which atheism can be, but isn't necessarily), the assortment of atoms that results in a rational consciousness and emotional capacity is the assortment that provides the basis for principles of meaningfulness and morality, compared to assortments from which no such mental capacities arise.
The real issue underlying your second question seems to be your assumption that matter isn't a sufficient ontological basis for meaningfulness; that particles in interaction can't yield real purpose. But why is matter any less of a condidate than whatever immaterial alternative you'd propose? If you offer some non-physical force as the basis of your ontology, what gives you any more right to assume that consciousness and reason and emotion and meaningfulness can arise from it? Our existence could be ultimately spiritual, AND be just as finite as it is under the materialist worldview your criticize.
My point isn't that immaterialism-in-general is wrong and materialism-in-general is right; my point is that the question of the ultimate basis of human nature is so mysterious that they both have equal claims.
>in order to maintain compatibility between the effects and their posited cause, the cause must be of the same material/finite nature
you're just pulling this out of your ass so to speak. there is nothing supporting your position except something you just came up with in your head.
>saying there's a third option is Hegelian dialectics
Beep boop either p or not-p beep boop
Yours would be closer to a justified criticism if I had asserted that principle as incontestible, rather than offering it as a
which you conveniently failed to quote from my post.
Also, I'm not pulling it out my ass. The
> interaction problem of substance dualism
(which you also failed to quote) has been around since at least the time of Descartes.
>You've got an external, personal God, and you've got atheists who (rightly) shit on the idea of an essentially morally good, harmonic cosmic order. As Jung says, good and evil are two sides of the same coin, God is in a way, also the devil. And the devil God. The point is one must transcend duality to the pure Ground of reality itself which conditions all dualities
Sounds like you've giving too much value by making the issue out of the beliefs of the sand niggers who are responsible for Judaism, Christianity and Islam. They don't even have a monopoly of western supernatural mythology, let alone various eastern systems, of which you touch upon (rather naively) later in your post.
>materialists necessarily must end at nihilism.
This is a non sequitur. Have you even read the literature which brought out the critical labels of systems such as "materialism" and "nihilism"? Given your sweeping generalisations I'm going to assume not but are open to clarification.
>and what gives anything that is not inherently greater than the universe
Nothing is inherently greater than the universe, though. Grammatically that state you made is correct but based on the words used, it's entirely meaningless. The universe is all "things"; "things" do not exist outside of the universe.
The enlightenment buddhists say they experience is just the gnostic realization that there is no free will. No free will and no self, no decider no doer, etc is the same thing.And is something philosophers, and neurologists have discussed for many years. Buddhism presents this with a mystical window dressing so people misinterpret "no free will" as being something it isn't. Then they have a feel when meditating and thing they unlocked some kind of secret vault.
I am in the no free will camp. And I got there through studying buddhism. And my experience with Liberation unleashed. But I am still very much an atheist. Sam Harris is a buddhist expert and an advocate of buddhist teachings and meditation. But he is also an atheist.
So op saying enlightened people are something special, and that they believe in God and don't believe in God at the same time, and that atheists are faggots, is literally wallowing in delusion and cognitive dissonance.
'All things' taken as a set, is actually extremely far from the greatest thing there is. It is, for one thing, radically ontologically dependent upon its components and ephemeral, since 'all things' change from moment to moment.
Moreover, even if it were some enduring whole, it would be dependent for its existence upon its parts, hence considered solely in itself would have no existence.
The greatest being, that is, the underivative and original being, would have to be self-existent and therefore utterly simple. It would therefore have to completely transcend the composition and contingency that characterises all the rest of reality. That's God, not the universe.
Thesis: Having to research a 100-200 page document to earn your M.A., possibly including fieldwork and interviews vetted through IRB
Antithesis: Does your program offer an Exit
Exam/Comps option for graduation? Take that instead?
Synthesis: You drop out of grad school to tour with your neo-synthpop band at nightclubs around the world