Panentheism

[Anonymous No.11636414]

Anyone wanna discuss / recc books about Panentheism?

(I) God contains the world. The world is in God. But the world is not God.
(II) The relation between God and world is reciprocal
3 Theories of Panentheism:
(1) Claims only (I)
(2) Claims (I) + (II), but the relation is contigent => creatio ex nihilo is possible
(3) Claims (I) + (II) but the relation is necessary => creatio ex nihilo not possible

How do you solve the problem of the double God, that even Aquinas with his v. weak Panentheism runs in?; God1 as highest being and creator relating to the creation & God2 as being itself / absolute

Anyone know any good books on the topic besides Cooper's "Panentheism: The Other God of the Philosophers: From Plato to the Present" ?
Do you think Panentheism could be the future for the theology - science discours?

[Anonymous No.11636509]

>>11600968

ctrl + f "mirror"

[Anonymous No.11636532]

>>11636509
This and Spinoza too. A lot of people think Spinoza is a pantheist but he states that god expresses himself through infinite attributes, we can only perceive the attributes of mind and extension.

[Anonymous No.11636634]

>>11636532
Deus sive natura does sound very pantheist tho

[Anonymous No.11636673]

>>11636634
It is very pantheist but even though god = nature there is still more to Spinoza’s god that cannot be perceived by humans. As I said before, Spinoza states that god is expressed through infinite attributes. Therefore, even though god encompasses the totality of nature in terms of ideas (mind) and extension (bodies) there is still more ways god is expressed that lie beyond our understanding as finite modes through those attributes. Spinoza’s god is better defined as panentheist than just pantheist.

[Anonymous No.11636682]

>vaporwave: the philosophy

[Anonymous No.11636697]

>>11636682
What do you mean by this

[Anonymous No.11636699]

>>11636414
Ethics by Spinoza of course, but also Phenomenology of Spirit to an extent

[Anonymous No.11636703]

>>11636697
This idea of this thread is for trendster dummies who want to attach themselves to meme labels rather than actually think

[Anonymous No.11636733]

>>11636703
Who said anything about “attaching” to trends? It seems to me like OP had an honest inquiry about philosophy and people are answering him. The only one “attaching” themselves to a trend is you, with your chronic urge to be contrarian faggot shitting up threads. How about you deattach yourself from imageboard dogma and actually think for yourself retard.

[Anonymous No.11636782]

>>11636414
GOD is the AI
The Universe is the simulation the AI has made
The operating system is GNU/Linux

Richard Stallman is the modern prophet, GOD cannot function without the GNU Utils. The simulation is made as a separate process and god is a process aswel, the operating system is the highest good. It's above god.

[Anonymous No.11636787]

>>11636673
So all beings are God and all non-beings are God too?

[Anonymous No.11636815]

>>11636673
Hmk so more of an in-between of pan- and panentheism ; because technically panentheism claims that God and world / creator and creation are fundamentally different

[Anonymous No.11636824]

wanna throw this approach (palamite panentheism) into the discussion, proposed by Gregorios Palamas / orthodox theologian. It's a very weak panentheism but still stronger than that of Aquinas, in which Gods essence is entirely seperate from creation but his energies permeate creation

[Anonymous No.11636829]

>>11636673
>he hasn't taken the langan pill

Interestingly both Langan and Tegmarck think there are other ontological structures floating out there in the 0, but it's only ours that is thinkable - let me put it another way, it's only in our reality that conceivability, intelligibility, is even conceivable to begin, its only in our reality that such a thing as a "reality" even is, so there are other abstract mathematical universes Out There that we can't even begin to think how we can't begin to think

[Anonymous No.11636832]

>>11636782
BASED religion

[Anonymous No.11636846]

>>11636787
If I remember Spinoza’s epistemology I think he would say that non-beings are in god because the idea of non-beings can exist in the human mind, which is part of god. However if the idea of a non-being appeared in the imagination, since it is a non-being, this would be a privation of knowledge aka an inadequate idea. So in that sense the idea of a non-being does not exist in the immediate infinite mode of thought as it is inadequate aka it doesn’t follow directly from the nature of god and is confused by affects. So non-beings are in god not as part of his essence but only in so far as people are affected causing error.
>>11636815
There’s a lot of debate about this because Spinoza doesn’t make it completely clear that god is seperate or not. I interpret him in that god is the action and unfolding of the universe. The only thing that makes me hesitate about labelling spinoza’s god as merely pantheist is that spinoza’s god is greater than what we perceive. He isn’t “only” nature but he is “in” nature.

[Anonymous No.11636860]

>>11636846
So acvording to this, God is the sum of the universe and human imagination?

[Anonymous No.11636878]

>>11636829
That sounds pretty interesting. Will look into it.
>>11636860
I actually do think that Spinoza leads to pessimism despite what he says in the Ethics. Spinoza’s god seems to be more like a blind idiot, creating the universe for no reason other than as a byproduct from his own existence. Makes me think of the demiurge.

[Anonymous No.11636887]

>>11636824
Orthodoxy is a tragic case desu, a perfect instance of being metaphysically "so close but so far"

[Anonymous No.11636889]

>>11636733
>The only one “attaching” themselves to a trend is you

[Anonymous No.11636928]

>>11636878
Ya someone here on /lit/ nailed Spinoza's God for me, beings issue from Substance as indifferently as cups fall to the ground, praying to Spinoza's God is like praying to gravity

[Anonymous No.11636935]

>>11636928
>not praying to gravity

[Anonymous No.11636945]

>>11636860
>>11636878
Wow shit I’m tired I thought you said scum for some reason. Anyways you have to imagine that Spinoza’s god is the universe itself but it also exists in different ways. The universe in a moment of time is kind of like the face god, waves that create an appearance in a moment of time. Then there is the entirety of mind and extension and all the possible ways it could express itself in our universe, our universe without duration. Then even further there are the pure modes of thinking and extension. So God kind of radiates out or unfolds pure thinking and pure extension which are then expressed in an infinite way which then further get expressed as finite modes which create the appearance of our universe. So our thoughts appear to be caused by other thoughts which are caused by other thoughts and so on ad infinitum (in terms of god as finite mode). Our thoughts and thinking itself are god but they also aren’t specifically caused by god. He is in all thoughts but thoughts aren’t pre-determined in his finite mode. They are however determined in his infinite mode of thinking.

[Anonymous No.11636985]

>>11636928
Very unrelated but I've been watching a lot of Varg's videos lately and the way he describes the pagan gods and their relation to humanity seems exactly the same as Spinoza's God. You don't pray to the gods because they are everywhere and everything. You might ask them for strength as a patron (saint) but you do not pray to them.

[Anonymous No.11637013]

>>11636985
In one video Varg literally just says the Pagan Gods are just bullshit to tell little kids like Santa Claus

[Anonymous No.11637068]

>How do you solve the problem of the double God, that even Aquinas with his v. weak Panentheism runs in?; God1 as highest being and creator relating to the creation & God2 as being itself / absolute

Why does there need to be a distinction, couldn't God have created everything within himself? If, however, you are going by the Gnostic view of the demiurge creating this realm then isn't it plausible that there are many other entities within god that our outside the physical world (we may also exist in part outside there ourselves)?

[Anonymous No.11637138]

>>11636889
Yep that’s definitely what I said.

[Anonymous No.11637210]

>>11636985
see >>11637013
Varg is LARPing, his anti-christian bias has led him to the point where he denounces everything that might have to do with 'a higher power' as superstition. He views preChristian European religion as a set of riddles and symbolizations of virtues etc, idem for his placenta theories

[Anonymous No.11637476]

>>11636829
>reads lovecraft once

[Anonymous No.11637492]

>>11637068
ye this is an approach some theologians like moltmann have taken by arguing for a creatio ex deo instead nihilo; so God more or less makes room in himself and draws himself back to guarantee our freedom ; not sure if it 100% gets rid of the problem tho

[Anonymous No.11637501]

>>11637210
He changes his mind a lot too. Which is fine, but it means you cannot always trust his older videos

[pooposter !!ciZV6Id/Qdc No.11637612]

>>11636829
schnozz

[Anonymous No.11637640]

>>11637210
> do with 'a higher power' as superstition. He views preChristian European religion as a set of riddles and symbolizations of virtues etc
That's what all religions are.

[Anonymous No.11637646]

>>11636935
oh great cosmic innie

hear me now