/lit/ - Literature

>>21515305
I think it's just atheism and I'm not an atheist.

>>21515310
Atheism rejects belief in God. If a person believes in hypotheses like the simulation hypothesis, he is certainly not an atheist. He is as much a theist as a Christian or a Muslim. This is because the simulation is created by a person or a team, so there is a creator or creators.

As a Pantheist, I believe that God (Prime Mover) is not outside our universe, but is immanent in it. The whole material world is just its differentiated forms. Just like you see in the related picture.

> pantheism is a self-defeating concept, because the concept of a God presupposes a world different from him as an essential correlate. If, on the other hand, the world is supposed to take over his role, then an absolute world without God remains; hence pantheism is only a euphemism for atheism. However, the expression of pantheism for its part works under false pretences by assuming in advance that theism is self-evident, thereby cleverly evading the point that ‘Proof is incumbent upon the person who makes a claim’, whereas the so-called atheism possesses the right of first occupancy and first has to be driven from the field by theism.

>>21515351
What do you contribute to the subject by copying and pasting other philosophers' quotations? Why can't you make an original criticism instead?

>>21515377
sapienti sat

>>21515401
When you write 2-3 words in Latin, you don't become a very knowledgeable, creative person. If you are going to make a decent, original criticism, do it, otherwise don't write here what you have memorized like a parrot.

>>21515415
He wrecked you bro. Now post your wrist

>>21515305
I can sympathize with the instinct that motivates someone to gravitate towards this notion but I just find it to be just too philosophically and logically problematic to identify the universe with God, both because it has attributes that are contrary to God, and because if one says that God has all these contingent moving parts in the universe as parts of himself then it becomes a question of what are all these pre-existent contingencies grounded in, how are they possibly accounted for in the first place etc.

>>21515415
wait, what is YOUR contribution exactly?

>>21515341
>If a person believes in hypotheses like the simulation hypothesis, he is certainly not an atheist.
Simulation hypothesis is not God. Good job contradicting yourself retard.
>>21515377
Because people much smarter than you btfo'd your generic 105IQ yoga mom theory over 100 years ago. You must be a very stupid beast if you need to ask what contribution is there to a subject from quoting one of the biggest philosophers of recent times on the very subject you are bringing up.

The definition of God implies something outside of this reality, as Schopenhauer and every other philosopher points out. Then obviously the universe can't be God. Just embrace your atheism without the fear of being called fedora by unfunny 4chan Christcucks.

>>21515435
Why yes I am an interfaith deist how could you tell?

>>21515341

Which should not be confused with the energy of the hyperfine granular retinal storms that the visible world produce in our eyes.

>>21515305

Pantheism and monotheism are completely incompatible. Pantheism implies disparate and decentralized spiritual forces, and monotheists have been attacking that view of reality for around 2500 years. Pantheism is a “living world” and monotheism is a dead world with life “spoken” into it by God. Very different conceptions of reality

>>21515305
If all of the cosmos came from one, and all things come from God, can you explain to me why evil exists?

>>21515692
O Parantapa, evil is but a part of the cosmic dream. It will not better you to dwell on this, Partha

>>21515669
There is actually none, and therefore millions up in each man’s mind.
There can never be one.

>>21515687
Panentheistic emanationism, such as of the Neoplatonists, resolves this dilemma. It’s also a frequent trend in Catholic and Eastern Orthodox theology and mysticism (themselves heavily influenced by Greek philosophy).

>>21515351
it doesn't really contradict anything unless you presuppose the definition of God. Pantheists define God as nature so that's their justification for saying they are pantheists. But from that point on pantheism can basically be reduced to materialism so it really is just philosophically mature atheism. At the same time atheists don't worship or necessarily feel reverence for nature whereas a pantheist might. it's all just semantics and of course Schopenhauer wasn't trying to refute pantheism, just the idea that pantheism is theistic.

>>21516499
The neoplatonists aren't pantheists because the One is transcendent of reality, it is not identical to reality. It's true that they said the One coheres in everything it causes and is "immanent" in all reality but that is just a contradiction of their own teachings since the One is supposed to transcend the categories and therefore be inconceivable. If you look at Spinoza you see that his conception of God as substance basically removes any categorical transcendence and he explicitly states that we have a perfect idea of God, whereas the neoplatonists would say it is impossible to conceive the One.

>>21515305
A pantheistic theology is very easily provable when the necessary terms are properly defined. How many people desire an understanding of reality enough to care about such a proof as opposed to, say, the beautiful poetry of Plotinus or the awe-inducing feeling of getting a glimpse into the lives of our very own gods-among-men who benevolently assume bodily forms, such as Prince Harry and his ilk, is another matter entirely. So until I see something that would indicate a reciprocal amount of interest in a lengthier exposition, it suffices to say that the proof is absolutely undeniable, and it is a result of the fact that creator and creation cannot be meaningfully separated. This is because nothing that is real can be meaningfully separated from any other thing that is also real, which is because everything that is real must be included in reality.

>>21516635
the CTMU isn't pantheist lol. The only thing that even looks remotely similar to pantheism in it is hology. He is far more inspired by substance pluralists like Leibniz.

>>21515435
>>>/pol/

>>21516661
You don't appear to have any idea what the CTMU says or what it implies.

>>21516685
1. omnipresence isn't the same as pantheism
2. pantheism doesn't retain god's monotheistic distinct existence from reality

>>21516625
PanENtheist. Pan-en-theist. Panentheist. The spelling is only slightly different but meanings are significantly different.>

>>21516696
holy shit stop fucking using this term just so you can gotcha people, just say neoplatonism.

>>21516696
>>21516625
Accidentally posted too early***
A panentheist combines both the immanent (manifesting in the creation) and transcendent (being the unique, all-powerful, and limited Creator of this creation and infinitely transcending it) aspects of God, and also analogous, for instance, to the attempted reconciliation of the materialism vs. idealism debate by neutral monism or dual-aspect monism (that “mind” and “matter” are both aspects of one underlying substance).

One allegory that captures it well is the relation of the person to his reflection in the mirror. The reflection is totally dependent on the person, would not exist without it, and is controlled by that person (inasmuch as they can move in and out of the frame, choose to show reflected in the mirror, etc.) Or, an artist to his artwork — the psyche and soul artist is manifested throughout the entire artwork, yet they remain the transcendent creator beyond it.

Of course, we’re talking about a very high-level abstract concept which go beyond such physical and reductionist analogies, so it can’t be taken as perfectly analogous. An analogy using Mesmerist vitalist overtones (criticized today of course as “simplistic folk psychology”), could put it that relation of God to the universe is as our soul to the body. The soul pervades the entire body, is not absent from any part of it, and also enlivens, animates, and controls the body. God is held in panentheism to be in a similar relation to the created universe, with the addition that He is also the Creator and Source of this universe.

>>21516690
>omnipresence isn't the same as pantheism
Sorry, but the idea that God inheres in (has existence within) the universe and is identical with such is *exactly what pantheism is and how it is defined*.
>pantheism doesn't retain god's monotheistic distinct existence from reality
Neither does the CTMU, because that would make God unreal. Now unless you have something substantive to say, something that would amount to an actual coherent argument, this conversation is over.

>>21516747
>Sorry, but the idea that God inheres in (has existence within) the universe and is identical with such is *exactly what pantheism is and how it is defined*.
no it's not, you're just wrong
>Neither does the CTMU, because that would make God unreal.
by distinct existence i mean an essence that is differentiable from reality, not existing independent or outside reality
>this conversation is over.
please shut the fuck up

>>21516696
>>21516625
Accidentally posted too early***

A panentheist combines both the immanent (manifesting in the creation) and transcendent (being the unique, all-powerful, and unlimited Creator of this creation, infinitely transcending it) aspects of God, and also analogous, for instance, to the attempted reconciliation of the materialism vs. idealism debate by neutral monism or dual-aspect monism (that “mind” and “matter” are both aspects of one underlying substance).

One allegory that captures it well is the relation of the person to his reflection in the mirror. The reflection is totally dependent on the person, would not exist without it, and is controlled by that person (inasmuch as they can move in and out of the frame, choose to show reflected in the mirror, etc.) Or, an artist to his artwork — the psyche and soul of the artist is manifested throughout the entire artwork, yet the artist remains the transcendent creator beyond their own artwork.

Of course, we’re talking about a very high-level abstract concept which goes beyond such physical and reductionist analogies, so it can’t be taken as perfectly analogous. An analogy using Mesmerist vitalist overtones (criticized today, of course, as “simplistic folk psychology”), could put it that relation of God to the universe is like that of the soul to the body. The soul pervades the entire body, is not absent from any part of it, and also enlivens, animates, and controls the body. God is held in panentheism to be in a similar relation to the created universe, with the addition that He is also the Creator and source of this universe.

>>21516703
This is bad advice and does not accurately portray my motives. I’m not trying to do a “gotcha”. I’m using the right technical term for the job. Panentheism is indeed technically different from pantheism, it can be found in Neoplatonism but not just in Neoplatonism, Kabbalist, Sufic, and Hindu thought also has a similar worldview. Moreover, if I just say “Neoplatonism” then I would also implicitly be adhering to all its unique and specific dogmas which I might not entirely agree with or have any backing for, panentheistic is the more technical and right term for the job.

>>21516752
>by distinct existence i mean an essence that is differentiable from reality, not existing independent or outside reality
Langan(poster) is correct here, you’re indulging in poor ontology and shoddy thinking. If God is differentiable from reality, God is not real (by definition of the word “reality”). Langan’s CTMU seems more metaphysically and ontologically self-consistent and with a lot more thought put into it than much of the dogmatic bashing of it, and I’m saying that as someone who hadn’t really looked into it until that poster posted those excerpts.

>>21517139
>If God is differentiable from reality, God is not real (by definition of the word “reality”)
I can differentiate the cup on my table from reality and from other things in reality. i'm not dogmatically bashing reality. langan is literally the dogmatist and his followers are cultists. I had nothing against the CTMU and put effort into trying to understand it until I became philosophically mature and recognized its immaturity.

>>21517354
>I can differentiate the cup on my table from reality and from other things in reality.
Indeed you can. That's because all of those things are real, meaning that they are differentiable *within* reality; not because they are differentiable *from* reality.

>>21517409
lmao a particular thing in reality cannot be reality itself. that's why we say all this is an illusion.

>>21515435
>Simulation hypothesis is not God. Good job contradicting yourself retard.
There is a creator in the simulation hypothesis. That creator is an entity that is abstract from the universe, just like in the Abrahamic religions, i.e. an entity independent of space-time. So they are as much theists as religious people. The simulation hypothesis is already a belief that people in the modern world take refuge in to escape from their troubles, to relax a little bit. It is absurd, it has no philosophical value.
>The definition of God implies something outside of this reality.
You don't even know what God means, and you make up your own definition. I bet when you think of God you think of an old man with a white beard, that's how far you are from the philosophical idea of God.

>>21515305
It's putting an arbitrary limit on the power of God by saying he couldn't create a true Other. Silly paranoid fantasy of ultimate cosmic loneliness.