/lit/ - Literature

>>18308139
pantheism ends in atheism though

>>18308160
Most athiests will tell you the universe is necessary if they don't admit brute facts. Too bad for them, since the composition of the universe prevents us from calling it truly divine

>>18308139
Michael S. Heiser

>>18308175
>the composition of the universe prevents us from calling it truly divine
Is this one of those “if god then why bad thing” arguments?

>>18308175
Why should the composite/simple distinction map onto the contingent/necessary distinction?

>>18308160
For me it was the middle stage from becoming a theist from an atheist.

>>18308139
read this in order (left 2 right)

>>18308139
I poisoned the eyes of a mulatto with cleaning chemicals a few years ago. I was inspired by reading Hittite myths

>>18308160
>guenon
>schuon
what

>>18308160
>ibn arabi
>pantheist

>>18308440
he literally says if your neighbour is worshipping doggy doo-doo that's a manifestation of God and not idolatry

>>18308451
No he doesnt, retard, he states it both is and isnt
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bgWnzjONXE

>>18308605
>it's not pantheism because, uhhhh, the Buddhist void is above it

yeah whatever, Ibn Arabi wants you to psyop yourself into thinking everything is God, it's dumb hippy bullshit

>>18308139
how are averroes and spinoza not "atheist" ? their god is not transcendent from the phenomena (/attributes) , but is the phenomena themselves.
the divide is between those who believe in transcendence (and deem phenomena "fake" ) and those who don't.

>>18308814
because spinoza literally said he believes in god when asked if hes atheist?

>>18308865
you're a fucking idiot

>>18308160
dualism ends in protestant materialism though

>>18308865
lol that's not true.
again, if you read proposition 16 (+ scolia and comments) in the book 1 of his ethics, he clearly says that god is ENTIRELY expressed in the phenomena. that's one of the most blatant negations of transcendence ever conceived.

>>18308160
Pantheism is what led me out of atheism, until I transcended that as well

pantheism means nothing, it's sentimental crap.
- either you believe that phenomena are fake and there is something real BEYOND them, and you are a theist/mystic
- or you believe that phenomena are real and there is nothing BEYOND them (if anything, their causes WITHIN them), and you are an atheist

>>18308924
Pantheism is an insult. Ibn Arabi, Shankara, etc. AREN'T pantheists.

>>18308160
>belief in God ends in unbelief in God
interesting

>>18308924
so atheists are objectively correct then?

>>18308933
ibn arabi is very confused and eclectic like all arabs. shankara is a proper mystic, that is, his hatred for the phenomenal reality is still unmatched in the history of human thought: the bible, the gospels, the neo-"platonists" and the other middle eastern trash are like little babies compared to him.
averroes (actually op doesnt mention him, i thought i saw his name), is somethig between a 18th century tier french deist and an outright atheist (especially in respect to his denial of the human soul).
spinoza is an atheist.

>>18308924
>god being reality is nihilism
>god being above reality isn't nihilism
I mean if you're going to do theism, at least do the one where god is totality and not a fictitious cantilever. Otherwise you are indeed a nihilist talking about a no-thing, heaping lies on top of a lie, which in a society that grants you no priestly authority for doing so, seems to not only indicate bad character but also a desire to escape the present reality.

>>18308965
Pantheism isn’t belief in God. Pantheism is a poetic / romantic way to speak about nature

>>18308999
no, god being reality is not "nihilistic" (another utterly retarded sentimental word, like "pantheism"), it's just meaningless, while god being "above" reality is "nihilism". theism indeed is the ultimate form of nihilism.
and it's completely irrelevant whether god INCLUDES or not nature: if god includes it but still has something more/beyond/above it, then reality lays at a lower level of truth than god, therefore it is fake compared to "him". if god has nothing more/beyond/above nature, then "he" is not transcendent and this is precisely the position of any atheist.

>>18309005
>it's not belief in God if it isn't belief in MY God!!!!

>>18309059
>no, god being reality is not "nihilistic" (another utterly retarded sentimental word, like "pantheism"), it's just meaningless, while god being "above" reality is "nihilism". theism indeed is the ultimate form of nihilism.
Yes that's the greentext I was commenting on.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3itkliz28w

Neil is an Atheist

>>18308974
deists are

>>18309126
problem is you think like a woman and mix logical with psychological problems.
if god exists, nature doesn't, if nature exist, god doesn't, if you think nature and god are the same thing then you are saying that god doesn't exist, but crying, and if you cry because god doesn't exist, take your meds or man up and learn that the world is not always the way you want. and that's all.

>>18309182
I am simply arguing with people who pretend to be priests but attract no followers or prestige. I don't hold the beliefs. Your division between psychological and logical is as "womanly" as dividing god and nature by the way.

>>18309107
Yes.

>>18308175
>Most athiests will tell you
Most atheists don't care at all

Imagine unironically having a fedora wearing neckbeard living rent free in your head

>>18309005
this

>when you realize perennialist non-dualism is just modernist romanticism and thinly veiled atheism

>>18310153
>abiding in the ultimate reality of divine cosmic consciousness is atheism
Retard

>>18310194
apply your logic consistently

Pantheism is retarded because it makes God into an object that has no will or volition of its own. It’s a way for atheists-in-denial to cope, and a way for them to put themselves above God, because the pantheist thinks he has more will, volition and freedom than the God

>>18310220
Correct.

>>18310220
Based and true

>>18310203
???

>>18308188
It's, the argument is derives from Plotinus.

>>18308207
I'm not sure what you're saying exactly. Simplicity is one of the central attributes of divinity, and people who say the universe is identical to God, are wrong on account of the demand for simplicity. I apologize, my earlier post is unclear. I had panthiests in mind when I wrote the second sentence.

>>18309510
True

>>18310220
Pantheism might be retarded, but monotheism is even more retarded than pantheism.

>>18311718
Wrong. Monotheism is necessary and contingent.

>>18311734
Monotheism leads to self-denying solipsism, which is the opposite of contingent.

>>18311718
Monotheism is true, and can be argued for rationally and experienced in mystical experiences

>CTRL+F "langan"
>no results
im shilling this man everyday until /lit/ collectively recognizes him as /ourguy/. the CMTU permits a rigorous framework to interpret various religious and mystical sects as well as providing critique of mystical experience
>>18308160
the precise issue with pantheism is that it grounds God in the finite (=bounded information) when to understand his will (or in a more secular vocabulary, the teleological evolution of laws which should function as an anthropic principle) one needs to understand what the constraints of reality are negatively defined against (=unbound potential). to understand God as a bounded entity would mean to posit aspects of the universe's evolution that transcends the divine. this immediately indicates an inadequate theological concept

to put it shortly, pantheism is not only at fault for its shallowness (as >>18309005 puts it, merely edification to make us feel fuzzy inside), but it also relies on a metaphysics that is inadequate to providing a proper cosmology

>>18311928
what is your alternative then (assuming your clam is true that monotheism somehow leads to solipsism lol)

>>18312051
Is Langan redpilled on cringe pantheism? Extremely based.

>>18312051
>to understand God as a bounded entity would mean to posit aspects of the universe's evolution that transcends the divine. this immediately indicates an inadequate theological concept
All you are saying here is that God must be beyond reality, i.e. fictional. The vocabulary is a nice touch.

>>18312074
you're a manchild with no life

>>18312051
also i will try to explain why the explanation given here (>>18311509) meshes with the requirement for infinitude (with the help of the CTMU as a reality-theoretic framework)

information theory provides us with a novel way of quantifying what exactly simplicity consists in. we generally know something to be simple if it has lower information content. but what exactly does information consist in? the answer would be constraint. that this is the best way of conceptualizing things was probably not very clear to the greeks because pre-modern mathematics lacks the pragmatic revolution with mathematical structures. luckily, we are modern, so we can provide a simple illustration. let us take the integers. there are various constraints in place including order properties, multiplication and addition rules, etc. one generalization we can make is that of a group. now we strip off the requirement that the integers have, and only require a single operation with convenient structure (mainly it is associative and has inverses). but we can generalize a group further perhaps to a monoid in which only associativity is required. in each progressive step, constraints are lost, and more importantly it becomes harder to prove results as we have less information to work with

now with this correspondence between simplicity and constraint-relaxation, it follows that the simplest object should have no constraints at all. but this is nothing but unbounded ontological potential (what langan calls UBT). so we see here that the infinite and the simple are one

>>18312068
i dont think he explicitly rags against pantheism, though if i recall correctly he does say somewhere that he is a panentheist
>>18312074
i think the thinking expounded in incomplete nature is important to have in order to properly understand my meaning. the issue here is that you think any alternative to being a thing is not worthy of consideration. but this is not a coherent position. thingness presupposes constraint, and constraint requires potential to be defined against otherwise it would be unintelligible as constraint

>>18312120
Don't bear false witness against your neighbor or He will roast you.

>>18312210
>the issue here is that you think any alternative to being a thing is not worthy of consideration. but this is not a coherent position. thingness presupposes constraint, and constraint requires potential to be defined against otherwise it would be unintelligible as constraint
On the contrary, things are what are hardly worthy of consideration. The things, or reifications, etc. are what get constrained and culled from nature, deus sive natura, i.e. totality, and rendered partite by fellow parts, for the expediency of being parts. Thingness is quality of these modalities of a substance. Parts look for parts to decompose and take into themselves. Nowhere in this do we locate a great untouched regulative prime part, for if we did, its thingness would allow it to be looted and devoured by other hungry things. A part cannot swallow a whole.

>>18312074
God is Being itself, you absolute hylic. Imagine thinking that all there is to this world is matter, space and time when they didn’t even exist before the beginning of the universe

>>18312323
Based ex nihilo nihilist. You sure showed those atheists

>>18312286
>rendered partite by fellow parts
the fellow parts are still partially constrained. all you do when you relate parts to other parts is get a negative network. you need absolute negativity to grant the points in this network genuine positivity

>>18312378
>ex nihilo = nihilist now
based troll

>>18312378
I believe in ex deo, pleb

>>18308139
People need to start dividing pantheism into naturalistic pantheism (Spinoza) and spiritual pantheism (someone like Jung).