Gray Posted October 28, 2016 Posted October 28, 2016 (edited) 2 hours ago, The Nehor said: At the dawn of time I spoke to the daelmon sultan Azathoth about Arianism and the LDS divinity of Christ. In the timeless void, Yamm, Mot, Ashtar, Dagan and I discussed the ramifications of what might happen to the ’ilm if they were to violate the eternal principles of the great YESH to be described in Deuteronomy 4:35. Quote To you it was shown, that you might know, that the Eternal is God; there is nothing else. Edited October 28, 2016 by Gray 1
mfbukowski Posted October 28, 2016 Posted October 28, 2016 On 10/27/2016 at 8:18 AM, Gray said: It's a matter of definitions, isn't it? In Mormonism God is a powerful alien being. You can call that being God, or you can say he's not God, but instead he's just a powerful extraterrestrial. Your choice. It's the same thing with Existence. Whether you choose to label Existence as God is subjective. The difference between the two concepts of course is that we all know existence exists. It's tautological. Existence also works as the "first cause" in the cosmological argument for God. And really, in Mormonism with its past-eternal lineage of Gods, Existence really is a kind of God - the supreme God, really. God didn't create Existence. Gods, rather, spring up out of Existence - in other words, Existence creates gods. The gods serve Existence, and even have to follow its rules, or cease to be gods. That's actually a category mistake. "Existence" is a word. Yes it exists as a word, but that has nothing to do with anything else. Spinoza would not have said that.
mfbukowski Posted October 28, 2016 Posted October 28, 2016 (edited) 5 hours ago, Gray said: If that's the case then Mormonism is in real trouble. The vast majority of Christians, not to mention Muslims and Jewish people, wouldn't recognize the idea that a space alien could be called God. But that's exactly what God is in Mormonism. Of course there's more to it than that, but when you start talking about worshiping lamps, then I must start talking about space aliens. The fact is God has never been well-defined. There are many thousands of different models for God. Pantheism is an older model than the standard LDS model. And older is always mo' bettah? Actually Mormonism is arguably from a philosophical point of view, an outgrowth of Romanticism which harkens back to ancient sources and reaches forward into postmodernism - what it has in common with both those modes of thought is reliance on the primacy of emotions and spirit to explain reality, and its tacit abandonment of evidentialism. It actually has some similarities to Spinoza's views at the gut level- the idea that God has created many worlds and the this earth itself has a spirit. The idea of the light of Christ permeating the universe is imo close to some of Spinoza's views. The idea of God being a space alien I think is a cartoonish view of the apotheosis of the Ideal Man and the idea that Mankind itself is God. In essence, we worship Man and Womankind raised to archetypes of ideal humanity. That's a far cry from "God is a space alien". We don't drag down God, making him into a into a Man- we raise Man into becoming God Edited October 28, 2016 by mfbukowski
Gray Posted October 28, 2016 Posted October 28, 2016 18 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: That's actually a category mistake. "Existence" is a word. Yes it exists as a word, but that has nothing to do with anything else. Spinoza would not have said that. mfbukoswki is a word too. But Existence is maximally maximalist. It's everything. There are many modes of existence of course. But Existence is Existence - the great "It Is".
mfbukowski Posted October 28, 2016 Posted October 28, 2016 Quote To you it was shown, that you might know, that the Eternal is God; there is nothing else. If God is everything, God is nothing. There is nothing to distinguish God from the background, a distinction without a difference.
mfbukowski Posted October 28, 2016 Posted October 28, 2016 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Gray said: mfbukoswki is a word too. But Existence is maximally maximalist. It's everything. There are many modes of existence of course. But Existence is Existence - the great "It Is". Nice tautologies, communicating nothing. I can trump them with A=A . I am not my name. Most babies know the distinction between names and objects. Edited October 28, 2016 by mfbukowski
Gray Posted October 28, 2016 Posted October 28, 2016 4 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: And older is always mo' bettah? Nope! 4 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Actually Mormonism is arguably from a philosophical point of view, an outgrowth of Romanticism which harkens back to ancient sources and reaches forward into postmodernism - what it has in common with both those modes of thought is reliance on the primacy of emotions and spirit to explain reality, and its tacit abandonment of evidentialism. It actually has some similarities to Spinoza's views at the gut level- the idea that God has created many worlds and the this earth itself has a spirit. The idea of the light of Christ permeating the universe is imo close to some of Spinoza's views. Sure. But in that same vein pantheism might be thought of as an outgrowth of Deuteronomy 4:35. There is nothing else but God. 4 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: The idea of God being a space alien I think is a cartoonish view of the apotheosis of the Ideal Man and the idea that Mankind itself is God. In essence, we worship Man and Womankind raised to archetypes of ideal humanity. Yes, it was intended to be cartoonish. One does not simply engage the Nehor without such things in one's back pocket. 4 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: That's a far cry from "God is a space alien". Yes, and Pantheism is a far cry from "God is a lamp."
Gray Posted October 28, 2016 Posted October 28, 2016 Just now, mfbukowski said: Nice tautologies, communicating nothing Perhaps you didn't catch the play on "I AM"? He who has ears to hear, let him hear.
Gray Posted October 28, 2016 Posted October 28, 2016 2 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: If God is everything, God is nothing. There is nothing to distinguish God from the background, a distinction without a difference. There no such thing as "nothing". And there is nothing superior to "everything that is". By definition! Of course mammals might find a God in the image of mammals to be more comforting, but I think that's rather inadequate.
mfbukowski Posted October 28, 2016 Posted October 28, 2016 3 minutes ago, Gray said: Perhaps you didn't catch the play on "I AM"? He who has ears to hear, let him hear. The only problem is that Spinoza lacks an "I". "I AM" is an assertion of a PERSONAL existence.
Gray Posted October 28, 2016 Posted October 28, 2016 Just now, mfbukowski said: The only problem is that Spinoza lacks an "I". "I AM" is an assertion of a PERSONAL existence. Yes, it's an early model for the more expansive IT IS. The model evolves as we evolve.
mfbukowski Posted October 28, 2016 Posted October 28, 2016 3 minutes ago, Gray said: There no such thing as "nothing". And there is nothing superior to "everything that is". By definition! Of course mammals might find a God in the image of mammals to be more comforting, but I think that's rather inadequate. Fine. If you want to be a neoplatonist, be one. Philosophy has advanced since that mumbo jumbo. Existence as a perfection? A perfection of what? Non existence? Ridiculous. Straight Greek stuff out of Aristotle and Plato- word games.
mfbukowski Posted October 28, 2016 Posted October 28, 2016 3 minutes ago, Gray said: Yes, it's an early model for the more expansive IT IS. The model evolves as we evolve. Read some Derrida and get out of the 17th century. The model evolves as we evolve
Gray Posted October 31, 2016 Posted October 31, 2016 (edited) On 10/28/2016 at 2:00 PM, mfbukowski said: Fine. If you want to be a neoplatonist, be one. Philosophy has advanced since that mumbo jumbo. Existence as a perfection? A perfection of what? Non existence? Ridiculous. Straight Greek stuff out of Aristotle and Plato- word games. I'm not sure what Plato has to do with this. Existence is all that is and all that will ever will be. What could be more holy than the very ground of our being? Edited October 31, 2016 by Gray
Gray Posted October 31, 2016 Posted October 31, 2016 (edited) On 10/28/2016 at 2:03 PM, mfbukowski said: Read some Derrida and get out of the 17th century. The model evolves as we evolve The idea of a personal God who gives explicit commandments leads to some rather atrocious outcomes and leaves us spiritually immature. As a good pragmatist, surely can see the issues with that model. Atheists rightly reject it, but offer nothing better to replace it. Edited October 31, 2016 by Gray
mfbukowski Posted October 31, 2016 Posted October 31, 2016 7 hours ago, Gray said: I'm not sure what Plato has to do with this. Existence is all that is and all that will ever will be. What could be more holy than the very ground of our being? Plato and Aristotle and other Greeks came up with the idea of "substance". I thought I linked to that. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/substance/ Quote For Spinoza, there is only one substance, the existence of which is demonstrated by a version of the ontological argument, which is thought of as being both God and Nature. It is an unending controversy whether Spinoza was a pantheist, or an atheist who called nature ‘God’ because it was the one true substance and existed necessarily. Everything else is a mode of this one substance. The view is analogous to a claim that the universe is space-time as a whole, with matter as distortions in it. If this were true, material objects would be modes of space-time. The analogy would be more exact if one also thought of the laws of nature as equivalent to the divine intellect immanent in nature. Spinoza's view represents the extreme end of stressing the status of substance as the fundamental existent conceived of as wholly necessary and self-subsistent: that is, criteria (i) and (ii) in the original list come to take on maximum weight. Nothing but the universe as a whole meets this criterion fully. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/substance/#DesSpiLei Leibniz, the next in line who tried to make sense of "substance" found Spinoza's definitions insufficient. Most philosophers no longer worry about metaphysical issues like what "substance" is. Hume pretty much put an end to that line of inquiry, and Kant took it all in an entirely different direction. Analytical and phenomenological philosophers eschew metaphysics altogether. If you can explain the metaphysics of "the ground of our being" then maybe you will have a case. I have no clue what that means.
mfbukowski Posted October 31, 2016 Posted October 31, 2016 (edited) 8 hours ago, Gray said: The idea of a personal God who gives explicit commandments leads to some rather atrocious outcomes and leaves us spiritually immature. As a good pragmatist, surely can see the issues with that model. Atheists rightly reject it, but offer nothing better to replace it. Yeah, that's the problem. But they certainly do not reject it "rightly"- many atheist philosophers understand that well. The notion of a personal God is justified if that is what one experiences.. I believe in a God who is the model of The Ideal Human, more specifically an Ideal Father. I experience Him as an actual intelligent presence with whom I can talk, and who knows me. Next time I have a conversation with God I will let him know that it is "immature" to believe in Him. I am sure He will be impressed. Unfortunately many atheist philosophers would disagree. Here is a very famous one- Thomas Nagel who is also arguably a "Pragmatist" I would say that Plantinga definitely is a Pragmatist. Quote The interest of this book, especially for secular readers, is its presentation from the inside of the point of view of a philosophically subtle and scientifically informed theist—an outlook with which many of them will not be familiar. Plantinga writes clearly and accessibly, and sometimes acidly—in response to aggressive critics of religion like Dawkins and Daniel Dennett. His comprehensive stand is a valuable contribution to this debate. I say this as someone who cannot imagine believing what he believes. But even those who cannot accept the theist alternative should admit that Plantinga’s criticisms of naturalism are directed at the deepest problem with that view—how it can account for the appearance, through the operation of the laws of physics and chemistry, of conscious beings like ourselves, capable of discovering those laws and understanding the universe that they govern. Defenders of naturalism have not ignored this problem, but I believe that so far, even with the aid of evolutionary theory, they have not proposed a credible solution. Perhaps theism and materialist naturalism are not the only alternatives. http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2012/09/27/philosopher-defends-religion/ Most of Nagel's career has been spent in trying to explain the connection or lack thereof between consciousness and naturalism, which cannot explain consciousness. Nagel has published at least one strong essay on the "Fear of Religion" http://www.uta.edu/philosophy/faculty/burgess-jackson/Nagel on Dawkins.pdf Edited October 31, 2016 by mfbukowski
Gray Posted November 1, 2016 Posted November 1, 2016 (edited) 16 hours ago, mfbukowski said: Plato and Aristotle and other Greeks came up with the idea of "substance". I thought I linked to that. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/substance/ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/substance/#DesSpiLei Leibniz, the next in line who tried to make sense of "substance" found Spinoza's definitions insufficient. Most philosophers no longer worry about metaphysical issues like what "substance" is. Hume pretty much put an end to that line of inquiry, and Kant took it all in an entirely different direction. Analytical and phenomenological philosophers eschew metaphysics altogether. If you can explain the metaphysics of "the ground of our being" then maybe you will have a case. I have no clue what that means. Sorry to be unclear, I'm sure you know more about Spinoza than I ever will, and I stopped talking about him some time ago. I'm really discussing my own beliefs. As I understand the phrase "ground of our being" or "ground of all being", it's another way of saying that God is "being" itself. I'm not talking about forms or some kind of stuff behind the stuff. I hesitate to say that God = the universe, because the universe implies a specific shape and form, with clusters of galaxies and so forth. Existence has many modes, the universe as it appears being the current mode. But existence was God at the singularity too, which is quite a different mode of being. The simplest way to say what I'm getting at when I talk about pantheism as I understand it is that the only thing that exists is God. You can't draw a circle around something outside of God. Maybe this is off topic, as the subject was, after all, Spinoza. Edited November 1, 2016 by Gray
Gray Posted November 1, 2016 Posted November 1, 2016 15 hours ago, mfbukowski said: Yeah, that's the problem. But they certainly do not reject it "rightly"- many atheist philosophers understand that well. The notion of a personal God is justified if that is what one experiences.. I believe in a God who is the model of The Ideal Human, more specifically an Ideal Father. I experience Him as an actual intelligent presence with whom I can talk, and who knows me. Sure, I can't argue with the way you experience God. But the problem with a personal God is everyone creates a personal God in either the image of themselves or in the image of someone else. What ends up happening is God becomes the image of the powerful and influential, and the marginalized of society suffer as a result. I don't think we can have a personal God without devolving into idolatry. 15 hours ago, mfbukowski said: Next time I have a conversation with God I will let him know that it is "immature" to believe in Him. I am sure He will be impressed. Unfortunately many atheist philosophers would disagree. Here is a very famous one- Thomas Nagel who is also arguably a "Pragmatist" I would say that Plantinga definitely is a Pragmatist. http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2012/09/27/philosopher-defends-religion/ Most of Nagel's career has been spent in trying to explain the connection or lack thereof between consciousness and naturalism, which cannot explain consciousness. Nagel has published at least one strong essay on the "Fear of Religion" http://www.uta.edu/philosophy/faculty/burgess-jackson/Nagel on Dawkins.pdf Consciousness will not remain a mystery forever, and we've already got inklings of a naturalistic explanation for consciousness. Of course as a good Mormon you know that the supernatural does not exist, and God is a God of naturalism anyway. No mystery has ever been solved by supernatural explanations.
Recommended Posts